bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2008 Madhyamvargiya Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mydt. ... Petitioner v/s Mr.Sunil Gajanan Kulkarni & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.U.Kamdar i/by N.N.Bhadrashete for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by N.V.Gangal for the Resp.No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 23RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Co-operative Court whereby the revision filed by the respondents has been allowed and the amendment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The dispute was filed by one Vijayamala Vishwasrao Devkar and Mohd. Jaffar Shaikh. Vijayamala Devkar was the Chairman of the Society and she expired after the dispute was filed in the year 1995. Mohd. Jaffar Shaikh was not one of the office bearers when the application was filed and, therefore, the body of persons, who, Vijayamala Devkar and Mohd. Jaffar Shaikh represented in the dispute, had sought an amendment. 2 They have claimed that the name of Vaishali Jadhav should be substituted instead of Vijayamala Devkar, as according to them, she has been elected as the Chairman of the disputant Society. Mohd. Jaffar Shaikh has been re-elected and, therefore, the amendment sought for substiting his name is not pressed. 2. The dispute has been filed to establish who represents the Madhyamvargiya Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit i.e. disputant No.1. While the original disputant Nos.2 and 3 claimed that they and the body which elected them represent the Society, the opponents in the dispute, claimed that they are the ones who in fact represent the Society. The revision application has been dismissed on the ground that once the Chairman is no longer in office, some other person cannot be allowed to take her place. The Co-operative Appellate Court was of the view that this was a personal dispute and, therefore, has disallowed the revision application. 3. From the pleadings on record, it is apparent that the dispute is between two sets of persons each of whom claim to represent the Society. In my opinion, therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed. Accordingly, the amendment is allowed and the dispute 3 should be amended within a week from today. 4. However, it is made clear that merely because the amendment has been allowed, it will not necessarily mean that it is the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who represent the Society. That would have to be decided in the dispute by the Trial Court. 5. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.