-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.6 OF 2006 LETTTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.6 OF 2006 LETTTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.6 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.5545 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.5545 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.5545 OF 2004 Harish Commercial Premise Co- operative Housing Socity Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. Smt.Varsha Dinesh Joshi & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.R.M.Nakhwa with Vasant Dhavan for appellant. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar with Y.M.Choudhari for respondents. CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the Judgment and order dated 1st December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions. The first contention is that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that there is no second revision maintainable under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This was also the view taken by the Secretary, Co-operative and Marketing, Maharashtra State, holding that there is no second -= : 2 : =- revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This Court in a plethora of cases has consistently taken a view that no second revision lies under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In view thereof, with regard to the first contention we find no substance in the present appeal. 2. Even on merits, we find that the respondents has entered into an agreement as far back as in the year 1981 with the Builder and even the Corporation has stated in their affidavit that the plans have been duly sanctioned. Under these circumstances, the contentions of the appellant that the respondents have no prima facie case and that no permission in their favour from the Corporation for the purpose of constructing the property cannot be upheld. Hence we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge for interfering with the same. Appeal stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR, J.)