Writ Petition No. 8785 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Adv. Mr.S.R.Ganbavale for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. : : : P.C.P.C.
The petitioner claims to be the Member of the 2nd Respondent Co-operative Society. The Respondent no.1 has filed a Dispute against the Co-operative Society. The Co-operative Society is a Respondent to that dispute and that dispute is pending. The petitioners applied for joinder as parties in the said Dispute and the argument was that the Chairman of the Society in question, is related to the present :2::2::2: Disputant and therefore the Society may not defend the proceedings properly. In such circumstances, their joinder was necessary. That Application was granted by the Trial Court, but, upon revision by the Original Disputant, the said order has been reversed, and that is how this Writ Petition.
I have perused the order of the Revisional Authority. The precise submission of Mr.Dalvi that there will be no harm and prejudice if the petitioner is joined as party has been considered by the Revisional Court. In para-7 it has been observed that, once the dispute is filed against the Co-operative Society and the Co-operative Society is a Body Corporate, then, there will be no necessity of joining the Members of the Co-operative Society as Respondents-Opponents. Insofar as, the argument that these Members are proper parties, the law is very clear. The court cannot pass an Order forcing somebody on the Original Plaintiffs/disputants as Defendants/Opponents. :3::3::3: The court can pass orders only if it is demonstrated that the parties are necessary parties. The Disputant has proceeded to file a dispute against the Society and my attention is also invited to the Written Statement where the Society has denied the claim. In such circumstances, even otherwise there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the present petitioners. The petition is therefore dismissed. However, if the petitioners have any grievance against the acts of Chairman or the Society otherwise, this order does not preclude them from raising the grievances in that behalf before the Authorities stipulated by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960. *********
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Mar 2008. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.