Gujarat High Court
Elite Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Joginderpal Singh Mahendrasingh & 2 on 16 June, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
C/LPA/124/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2783 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1110 of 2014
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 of 2014
================================================================
ELITE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
JOGINDERPAL SINGH MAHENDRASINGH & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR S TRIPATHY, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS USHARANI TRIPATHY, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 16/06/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Appellant has challenged judgment dated 06.01.2014 of learned single Judge in SCA No.2783 of 2013. The appellant was original petitioner. The appellant is a co- operative housing society. Respondent No.1 claims to be a duly registered member of the society. When disputes with respect to his membership arose, he approached the Board of Nominees by filing a lavad suit and also prayed for interim Page 1 of 4 C/LPA/124/2014 ORDER relief in terms of para 13-A. The application was for prayer against the society not to disturb his status as a member of the society and to allow him to enjoy all benefits flowing from the same. The Board of Nominees initially granted such injunction by ex-parte order dated 03.07.2009 in terms of para 13-A of the application. After bye-parte hearing, by order dated 16.11.2011, the same was confirmed and the society's appeal was dismissed by the Co-operative Tribunal. The society's writ petition came to be dismissed by learned single Judge with cost.
2. Learned counsel Mr.Tripathy for the appellant vehemently contended that the Board of Nominees could not have granted any injunction which amounted to final relief, that too without going into the question of admittance of respondent No.1 into the membership of the society. He further submitted that learned single Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition and that too with cost. Respondent No.1 was present in person. He waived the cost, but opposed the LPA on merits. He further stated that during pendency of the lavad suit, he shall not contest for any elected position of the society.
3. In view of such statement, we are not inclined to Page 2 of 4 C/LPA/124/2014 ORDER entertain the LPA. The entire issue is still pending for final adjudication by the Board of Nominees. The society has challenged an interim order. Learned single Judge has given cogent reasons for not entertaining the writ petition. We do not accept the stand of the society that what is granted by way of interim injunction amounts to allowing the suit. Respondent No.1 has been granted interim protection. If at the time of disposal of the lavad suit he fails to make out a case, surely the Board of Nominees can still dismiss the suit and vacate the interim injunction.
4. Under the circumstances, the LPA is dismissed, subject to the statement made by respondent No.1. Direction for payment of cost by the judgment of learned single Judge is set aside. The Board of Nominees shall decide the pending suit unmindful of any of the observations made in the judgment of learned single Judge or this order.
5. In view of dismissal of the LPA, the civil application does not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/124/2014 ORDER (MOHINDER PAL, J.) (KMGThilake) Page 4 of 4