1 (WP 2567 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2567 OF 2009 M/s.Villayati Ram Mittal ….Petitioner Vs. Smt. Bhagwati K. Joshi & Anr. ….Respondents ----- Mr.R.S. Ghadge i/b. Mr. A.S. Desai for the Petitioner Mr.S.P. Dighe i/b. Mr.S.K. Shinde for Respondent No.2 Mr.R.N.Narula a/w. A.Dasgupta i/b. M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he is in possession of flat No. 23-A, Respondent No.1 filed a suit against the society – Respondent No.2 2 (WP 2567 of 2009) seeking possession of a flat admeasuring 500 sq. ft. and an award was passed by the Trial Court on 16th January, 2004. The Petitioner claims to be a developer and according to him, he constructed a building and an amount of Rs.17.30 crores is due and payable by the society. The Petitioner being the contractor of the developer, the developer handed over possession of one flat to him. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Co-operative Court, he preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra State Appellate Tribunal and in the said appeal, he preferred Misc. Application No. 5 of 2009 for condonation of delay. According to the Petitioner, the learned Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal without giving hearing and only the Misc. Application for condonation of delay was heard. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari J.) had given liberty to the Petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings. He invited my 3 (WP 2567 of 2009) attention to the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. It is further submitted that in the award, the particulars of the flat have not been mentioned and, therefore, it was not open for the Respondent No.1 to take possession of the flat which is being occupied by him. 3. On the other hand, Shri Nerula, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that the Petitioner has no locus to file an appeal. He submitted that an application was also filed by the Petitioner for leave to file appeal. He submitted that by consent of parties, all applications were heard and the Maharashtra State Appellate Tribunal in its order has recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner herein and, thereafter, has passed a reasoned order. He submitted that the Petitioner has already filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.17.30 4 (WP 2567 of 2009) crores and the suit is pending. It was submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Co-operative Court and the Maharashtra State Appellate Tribunal. 4. After having heard both the counsel at length, in my view, no case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is neither a member of the society nor there was any agreement between the parties regarding allotment of a flat in the said society. The developer on whose behalf the Petitioner constructed a building, also did not enter into any agreement between the society and the Petitioner allotting any flat in the society in favour of the Petitioner. Even under section 97 of the Co-operative Societies Act only a party who is aggrieved by the order of the Co- operative Court can file an appeal. It was strenuously 5 (WP 2567 of 2009) urged that any person could challenge the said order. In my view, upon a plain interpretation of section 97, it is apparent that only the party aggrieved can prefer an appeal. The Petitioner obviously does not have any locus to challenge the award passed by the Competent Court. The Learned Single Judge of this Court in its order dated 29th January, 2011 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1096 of 2008 in Execution Application (L) No. 245 of 2008 in Case No. CC/4/240/2002 has observed that the Petitioner is at liberty to take out an appropriate proceeding to assert his right. It is an admitted position that the Court Receiver is appointed and one set of keys is handed over to the Court Receiver. Therefore, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. No case is made out by the Petitioner for interfering with the order passed by the Maharashtra State 6 (WP 2567 of 2009) Appellate Tribunal. Needless to state that the Petitioner is always at liberty to take out an appropriate proceedings to assert his right. As a result, writ petition is disposed of. Civil Application No. 2601 of 2010 does not survive and is also disposed of. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks continuation of interim relief for four weeks. The said request is declined. (V.M. KANADE J.)