JUDGMENT - Bhosale D.B., J.:-Heard Mr. learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. learned Counsel for the respondent.

2.These two writ petitions arise out of the common judgment and order dated 21-7-1986 rendered by the Co-operative Appellate Court by which three revision applications were disposed of. The first revision applications was filed by the disputant (for short "the firm") who is respondent No. 1 in the first Writ Petition No. 1915 of 1987 and the petitioner in the Second Writ Petition No. 1585 of 1987. The second revision was filed by original opponent No. 1 - society (for short "the society") who is the petitioner in the first petition and respondent No. 1 in the 2nd petition. The third revision was filed by the original opponent No. 2 to 9 who are respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in both the petition (for short "respondent Nos. 2 to 9"). All three revisions were filed against the judgment and order dated 23-4-1986 passed by the Co-operative Court in the application seeking amendment of the dispute filed under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") bearing Arbitration Case No. CC/II/537/1870 of 1973 by which the said application was partly allowed.

3.The factual matrix that would be relevant and material for deciding the questions raised and involved in these two petitions is as follows: The firm filed a dispute application claiming various reliefs. The sum and substance of the reliefs claimed by the firm is that the society and the opponents be ordered and directed to complete the construction of the flats on the 10th floor and the garages on the ground floor an also the ground floor flats, the recreation hall etc. and hand over possession thereof to the firm and their licences as provided in the agreement dated 25-9-1963 and further that opponent Nos. 2 to 9, who are in occupation of the said flats be ordered to vacate the same. They have also prayed for damages from the society. In effect, the firm has prayed for specific performance of the agreement dated 25-9-1963 entered into between them and the society and wherein the society had agreed to complete the construction and to hand over the possession thereof to the firm. Respondent Nos. 10 to 16 in Writ Petition No. 1585 of 1987 are the beneficiaries-licencees (for short "respondent Nos. 10 to 16") of the petitioner-firm, who were named in the agreement of 1963 and, according to the firm, are entitled for their rights created under the said agrement. I will not like refer to the facts in detail as, in my opinion, they may not be necessary for deciding the questions involved in the instant writ petitions.

4.The evidence in the instant case started with recording of the examination-in-chief of one Ratanlal on behalf of the firm on 4-8-1981 which concluded some time in 1985. Two more witnesses were examined in 1985, and the firm closed their evidence. The society started leading their evidence with the examination of one Tulsidas Sharma on 1-11-1985 and while his evidence was being recorded on 10-2-1986 the application was filed by the firm for amendment. The amendment was opposed by the society on various grounds. I am consciously avoiding to make reference to the amendment in view of the fact that merits of the amendment have not been challenged and even otherwise need not be considered at this stage. The amendment has been challenged only on two grounds to which I would be making reference while dealing with the submissions of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the society. The amendment application was partly allowed by the Co-operative Court vide the order dated 23-4-1986 against which, as stated earlier, three revision applications came to be filed before the Co-operative Appellate Court. In all three revision applications the order of the trial Court had been modified which is being challenged in these two petitions.

5.I heard learned Senior Counsel for the firm and the society as also Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document