JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order passed by the Co-operative Court No. 1 Bombay dated 19-4-2001 below application dated 1-3-2001 and dated 23-4-2001. Briefly stated S.R. Saudagar/respondent No. 2 instituted dispute under section 91 against the petitioner society being Case C.C. 1/73/90 (C.C.II/374/80). In that dispute respondent No. 2 filed an application dated 1-3-2001 for permission to withdraw the dispute. That application was opposed by respondent No. 1 contending that he has acquired interest in the suit property and, therefore, he should be joined as party to the dispute and be permitted to persue the remedy claimed in the dispute. Notably, respondent No. 1 is one of the son of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 took that stand on the premise that the suit property originally belonged to respondent No. 1's father Ramnath viz. husband of respondent No. 2. After his demise in the year 1983 the suit property was transferred in the name of respondent No. 2 as nominee of original member Ramnath. He further contended that the said Ramnath has executed a Will as well as irrevocable power of attorney in his favour. Relying on those documents, respondent No. 1 claims that he has acquired, interest in the suit property by virtue of the said Will as well as irrevocable power of attorney and was entitled to pursue the remedy against the petitioner society in respect of the subject flat. The Co-operative Court has accepted that contention having found that the Will as well as irrevocable power of attorney have been produced on record. The respondent No. 2 however, resisted the claim of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the Will as well as irrevocable power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No. 1 have been revoked and therefore, the respondent No. 1 has no right in the disputed property. The Court below has examined that position and applying the settled legal position, found that once an irrevocable power of attorney is executed in respect of immovable property, it was not open to be revoked and even if that was done, it would not defeat the right of respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the Co-operative Court has found that presence of respondent No. 1 in the dispute was imperative. In the circumstances, the Co-operative Court although permitted respondent No. 2 to withdraw the dispute, by the same order, in exercise of power under section 94(3) of the Act, directed that the respondent No. 1 be added as party to the dispute and he may appear as disputant by filing separate application to the dispute. That is the first order which is impugned in the present petition. Pursuant to the above order the respondent No. 1 filed application on 19-4-2001 (Exhibit K) praying that he may be allowed to delete the name of respondent No. 2 as disputant and instead add his name as disputant. In that application reply was filed by the petitioner society contending that in that case all the heirs of the deceased member should be brought on record. The Co-operative Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 but kept the question regarding adding of other heirs of deceased member as party to the dispute to be decided at a later stage. That is the second order which is assailed in this petition.

2. Mr. Godbole for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Co-operative Court permitting respondent No. 1 to be joined as disputant in the dispute originally filed by the respondent No. 2 is not permissible under the scheme of section 94(3) of the Act. He contends that the respondent No. 1 could have been allowed to be joined as party only if he had acquired interest in the property of a person who is party to the dispute. He submits that since Ramnath original member was not party to the dispute right, if any, acquired by the respondent No. 1 through Ramnath, would be of no consequence and that cannot be the basis to allow respondent No. 1 to be joined as party

Click Here to Read the rest of this document