1 WP832/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.832 OF 2011 The Venus Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others .... Petitioners. v/s Mrs. Vasanti B. Bajaj and others .... Respondents. Mr. R.S. Desai i/b Thodur Law Associates for the Petitioners. Ms. Mumta Chandan for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 8th February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society and is one of the Respondents in Election Petition filed by the Respondents herein in the Co-operative Court. Application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed by the Petitioners herein, seeking amendment of the Written Statement as per the schedule annexed to the said application. The said application was rejected since it was 2 WP832/11 not signed by the authorized signatory. Therefore, another application for amendment was made. The Co-operative Court rejected the said application and observed that the amendment which was sought to be made essentially was regarding locus of the respondent-petitioner in challenging the election which issue could be argued at the stage of final hearing since it was a legal issue and, secondly, it came to the conclusion that the said application obviously was filed to protract the proceedings. Against the said order, revision was filed. In the said revision application, application was made for grant of stay to the election dispute which was pending in the Trial Court. The said application was rejected by passing a reasoned order dated 07/01/2011. Hearing of the revision application was expedited and it was fixed for hearing on 29/1/2011. 3. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed in the application taken out in revision which has been pending before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Court, Mumbai. Firstly, the Co-operative Court has clearly observed that the question of locus of the election petitioner in challenging the dispute could be argued by the Petitioners herein at the time of final hearing. Secondly, so far as the amendment which is sought to be made and reference of which is made in para 6 of the application for amendment, the same is already included in the Written Statement. Therefore, in my view, the order passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the said application 3 WP832/11 is a well reasoned order. The revision application itself was fixed for final hearing. In any case, in view of the reasons given by the Co-operative Court, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. Lastly, the election petition itself is ripe for final hearing, the evidence is over and the matter is kept for arguments and, thereafter, this application appears to have been moved. The Co-operative Court, therefore, was justified in coming to the conclusion that frivolous applications were made for protracting the election dispute. Already two and half years are over after the election petition was filed and the term of the candidate whose election is challenged will come to an end by 5th July 2011. 4. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, Writ Petition is dismissed. Hearing of the election dispute is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 WP832/11