1 wp5213-89common rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5213 OF 1989 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5221 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5214 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5215 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5217 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5218 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5219 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner 2 wp5213-89common V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddhi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 1989 Smt. Vijayalaxmi Vishwanath Dhuri .. Petitioner V/s. Om Buddi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others .. Respondents ..... Mr. Chacko Joseph for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Akerkar for respondent No.1. in W.P. No. 5213/1989, 5214/1989, 5215/1989, 5220/1989, 5221/1989 and 3905/1989 5217/1989. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. It is not in dispute that the controversy involved in this petition is virtually the same as the controversy involved in the case of Uma Mangesh Kulkarni, (Deceased through her LR's.) V/s. Om Buddi Co Operative Society Limited and Others [2006 (5) 3 wp5213-89common ALL MR 62]. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to distinguish the said decision by submitting that in some of the petitions there is material on record to show that the petitioners are the shareholders and members of the society and therefore a different view is required to be taken. 2. I have considered the submissions. It must be noted here that by the aforesaid decision, this Court decided Writ Petition No. 4391 of 1989 alongwith three connected Petitions including Writ Petition No.3904 of 1989 wherein the present petitioners were the respondents. This Court in paragraph Nos.32 and 33 has held thus: “32. Leaving aside some minor and technical matters and going to the root of the controversy, the record reveals that the petitioners have miserably failed to show that they are share holders or members of society. Some of them could not even produced a share certificate. Assuming without admitting that they could be said to be members because earlier installments were accepted, yet they do not deny that a general body meeting on 7 th December, 1980 was held at which they were present. A list of persons who had complied with Section 26 of the MCS Act, was prepared and shown to those attending the meeting of 7 th December, 1980. Upon noticing their names in the list of members who have not made full payment, the petitioners and such other members undertook to pay balance amount by 31 st January, 1981, failing which they stated that they have no objection if new persons are allotted the flats/tenements. The above actions were ratified as is clear from the minutes of meeting dated 4 th January, 1981. The petitioners have not been able to establish that they tendered the amount on or before 31 st January, 1981. Indeed, they could 4 wp5213-89common not even established that on the date of allotment of flats to the new members on 19 th February, 1981 they had made full contributions. If that be the case, then they would not have placed reliance upon the communications received from the society on 25th February, 1981. It only means that they were aware of the obligations and that if they do not make their contributions in time, they would forfeit their right of allotment of a flat/tenements. They have made no attempt to pay the amount by 31 st January, 1981 or even before the date of allotment to the new members. 33. Once the record indicates that they authorized the society to include new members in case of their default, then it is not open to them to urge that even if contributions are not made in time, the society was not permitted to enroll new members and allot them flats or put them in p possession thereof.” In paragraph No. 37 this Court has held thus: “37. It is after the occupation certificate was received that the society allotted the tenements and the petitioner having not abided by resolutions of the general body meeting naturally was not alloted the flat.” (underline supplied) 3. Without going into the controversy whether the petitioners have produced any material to show that they were members it is not in dispute that the reasons recorded in latter part of the paragraph No.32 and 37 in the case of Uma Mangesh Karnik (Supra) will apply to these petitions. 4. Hence, in view of the said decision, this is not a case where interference can be made with the impugned Judgments and 5 wp5213-89common orders. Petitioners are rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 5. The pending Civil Applications do not survive and the same are disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)