1 WP-8270.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8270 OF 2011 Roozben Mundegar Aga : Petitioner versus Rock House Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ors. : Respondents. Mr.V Y Sanglikar for the Petitioner. Mr.J S Kini with Suresh Dubey for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 14th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 24/08/2011 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai by which order the Revision Application No.64 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner against dis-allowance of the questions sought to be put by the Petitioner in the cross examination of the witness of the society came to be rejected. 2 The genesis of the present petition lies in the refusal of the Co- operative Court in allowing the Petitioner to put three questions. The said questions are as under :- Question No.1 : Is it true to say that M/s. Indo Sigon Agenes has addressed a letter dt.5.12.1980 to the 2 WP-8270.11.sxw society seeking NOC for transfer of flat No.2 in favour of the father of Opponent No.2 ? Question No.2 :- Does the aspect of dispute regarding the ground rent reflect in the audit report ? Question No.3 :- The outstanding amount Rs.28,800/- which is shown in the outstanding expenses is not shown in the income and expenditure, what is the reasons ? 3 It is required to be noted that the dispute in respect of the membership of the Petitioner is pending in this Court in Writ Petition No.3449 of 1995. In so far as Question No.1 is concerned, the Co-operative Court has refused the said question on the ground that the same cannot be within the purview of the said Court as the dispute is a simple dispute for recovery of dues and there are no pleadings to that effect in the written statement of the Petitioner who was Opponent No.2 in the said dispute, and that issue of membership is subjudiced in this Court in Writ Petition No.3449 of 1995. 4 In so far as Question No.2 is concerned, the same has been refused as the audit report has been made available to the Petitioner and the same answer can be seen from the audit report. 3 WP-8270.11.sxw 5 In so far as Question No.3 is concerned, the Court has refused the said question on the ground that the issue is not as regards the discrepancy but as regards discrimination in the matter of recovery of the charges between the members of the Society 6 As indicated above, against the said refusal of the Co-operative Court, the Petitioner had filed a Revision. The said Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order and the reasons given by the trial Court for refusing the questions, have resultantly been confirmed. The Revisional Court has further held that the attempt seems to protract the litigation by taking every other order before the higher authorities including the present revision. It is required to be noted that the dispute in question has been expedited by this Court by order dated July 23, 2010, and was directed to be disputed of within six months from that date. In that view of the matter no case for interdiction in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the above Petition would not come in the way of the Petitioner in making appropriate submissions based on the audit report and the record and proceedings in Writ Petition No.3449 of 1995, at the time of hearing of the dispute. [R.M.SAVANT, J]