A. P. DESHPANDE,J.:- As both the Letters Patent Appeals are filed in the same set of facts, raising common question of law, the Letters Patent Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present appellants are the legal representatives of one Smt. Indumati Shamrao Bhokare. She was advanced mortgage loan by the respondent no.1. As the loan was not repaid, the respondent no. 1 initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, "the Act") before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Kopargaon. The Assistant Registrar issued a certificate in favour of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 tried to execute the said certificate. Hence, the present petitioners instituted a suit for declaration in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), that the certificate obtained by the respondent no.l/Society is a nullity and hence, prayed for injunction seeking to restrain the respondent no.1 from executing the certificate. The trial court granted the injunction, as prayed for, and restrained the Society from executing the certificate. Before the Civil Court, the respondent no. 1 had objected to the maintainability of the suit and had contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction as a special forum is constituted for dealing with the disputes under Section 101 of the Act in regard to certain category of Societies. The objection was rejected and the Civil Court held that it has jurisdiction.

3. Aggrieved by the order granting injunction and holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the present respondent no.1 filed a Writ Petition in this court. During the hearing of the said Writ Petition, the learned Counsel for the present appellants had submitted that the main thrust of the appellants in the suit, for claiming the certificate to be nullity, is that the same was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. This court, in that view of the matter, set aside the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Registrar for affording an opportunity of hearing to the present appellants. Satisfied by the redressal of the grievance, the appellants withdrew the suit. After the remand, parties were heard and the Assistant Registrar, yet again issued a certificate in favour of the respondent no.1 for a given sum of amount, being recoverable from the present appellants. This time, the present appellants chose to file a dispute under Section 91 of the Act and challenged the recovery certificate. The prayer made in the dispute is seeking a declaration that the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar under Section 101 of the Act, is a nullity. Consequential prayers are also made, that the certificate ought not to be executed. Stay of the execution of the certificate was also asked for. The Co-operative Court initially granted ad interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 from executing the certificate.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present respondent no.1 filed a Writ Petition in this court, questioning the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 to entertain a dispute wherein a relief of declaration in regard to the certificate being nullity was asked for. The learned Single Judge of this court, by an interim order, stayed the proceedings on the file of the Co-operative Court, as a consequence of which, the ad interim order could not be further continued and hence the present appellants also filed a Writ Petition in this court bearing Writ Petition No.3457/2009. Both the Writ Petitions were taken up for hearing simultaneously and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.1 and held that a certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act cannot be challenged by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Act. The petition filed by the