JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---The order challenged is dated 16th February, 1987, passed by Joint Civil Judge Senior division, Aurangabad in Execution Petition No. 27 of 1984 below Exh. 36. The execution petition pertains to the execution of the award of the Co-operative Court, passed under section 91 bearing No. ACR/509/82 dated 8th April, 1983. The present petitioner is a member of the said society and as a member of the said society, which is tenant ownership co-operative housing society, this petitioner was to get a plot for house from the said society. However, when without following the procedure of terminating the membership his membership was terminated and the plot which was to be allotted to him was not allotted, the dispute started. What is pertinent to be noted is that the award passed by the Co-operative Court is to the following effect:

"The dispute is decreed. It is decided and declared that the disputant is a member of defendant No. 1 society and he is entitled to get an allotment of plot from the defendant No. 1. The defendants shall allot plot from defendant No. 1 society to the disputant. The defendants shall pay Rs. 365/- to the disputant towards the costs of dispute and shall bear their own costs."

2. As per this award, respondent No. 1 society has been directed to allot the plot to the petitioner. However, the respondent-society filed application Exh.37 and reported to the Executing Court that all the plots of the society have been allotted and there is no plot with the society so as to allot it to the present petitioner and therefore, the execution cannot be proceeded with. They have further stated that after the resolution to dismember the present petitioner was passed, but prior to institution of dispute, the balance plots which were with the society, have been allotted by the society to the different members, who were enrolled subsequent to disputant petitioner and, therefore, the award cannot be executed. It is an admitted position on record that it was never disclosed before the Co-operative Court that the society is not possessed of the plots which can be allotted to the present petitioner. For the first time, in a execution petition this was pointed out by the society and, therefore, it is not possible for the present petitioner to know whether the society is possessed of a plot for allotment to him. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect, because the Court cannot go behind the decree. What is directed is the allotment of the plot and that does not mean that if the plot is available the said plot should be given by the society. The fact remains that the petitioner was entitled to get a plot and, therefore, mandatory directions have been issued. At the time when petitioner was illegally dismembered by the society, the respondent society was possessed of plot that could have been allotted to petitioner and, therefore, petitioner's right to get plot have been decreed by the Court. That means the society if already possessed of any plot shall allot that plot and if not possessed of it, the society shall make it available from its own funds and/or the funds raised from the rest of the members of the said society and/or from the assets of the society and shall allot it to the petitioner. How to obey that direction is a lookout of the said society and if in case the society's officers are not in a position to obey the directions of the Court, the Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the procedure of executing that said decree namely, attachment of the properties of the society and put it to sale till the direction is obeyed by the society and/or the Court can proceed against the members of the managing committee of society by following the procedure of the civil prison, etc. All this could have been done so as to force the society to implement the award which has been passed by the Co-operative Court. This is required to be mentioned because in a housing society being a co-opera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document