1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.

2. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted a suit against the petitioner-bank and the Special Recovery Officer, so also against the original defendants 3 and 4, claiming a declaration that the attachment of land belonging to the plaintiff to the extent of 4 H out of land gut no.59 of village Jambhali, Tq.Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad, owned and possessed by the plaintiff, is null and void and subsequent sale in favour of defendant no.3 is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claims a decree of recovery of possession of 4H of land of gut no.59. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the property. She is neither a borrower nor a guarantor in respect of the transaction allegedly entered into by M/s. Iceberg Refrigeration Company with petitioner-bank. The property belonging to the plaintiff has been attached and sold for effecting recovery of dues payable by M/s. Iceberg Refrigeration Company. The property in dispute has already been sold, which was put to auction and the same is purchased by respondent no.3. The auction sale has been confirmed by the Registrar and it appears that the possession of the disputed land also has been handed over to the purchaser. The plaintiff claims that she is a pardanashin lady and has no connection with the transaction entered into between M/s. Iceberg Refrigeration Company and the petitioner no.1-bank. It is also stated in the plaint that the property has been attached by the defendant no.1-bank, presumably acting under the false and fabricated mortgage deed, allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the bank. The plaintiff contends that if at all the defendant no.1 claims entitlement to the property put to auction, on the basis of mortgage deed, the same is false and fabricated and has not been executed by the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff had also earlier challenged the action of attachment of the property by presenting an objection as contemplated by section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.C.S. Act"). The objection raised by the plaintiff was turned down. The plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition in this Court, challenging the order passed by the Recovery Officer and the Registrar. The Writ Petition, however, came to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner therein i.e. original plaintiff to present a suit for safeguarding her interest in relation to the property. Acting upon the liberty granted by this Court, the plaintiff has presented Special Civil Suit no. 729 of 2009. In the pending suit, the petitioner herein i.e. defendant nos. 1 and 2 raised an objection that the suit is not tenable in view of the non-compliance of provisions of section 164 of the M.C.S. Act. It is contended that the subject matter of the suit touches the business of the society. It is canvassed that prayer clause (B) contained in the plaint claiming a declaration that the sale of the property in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void, relates to the transaction touching the business of the society and as such the suit is not entertainable, without transmitting previous notice, as contemplated by section 164 of the M.C.S. Act.

4. The trial Court after hearing the parties, turned down the objection in view of the order passed on 02.12.2011.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. On perusal of the pleadings contained in the plaint, it transpires that the plaintiff specifically contend that the property in question has been put by the society/bank to auction for recovery of dues payable by M/s Iceberg Refrigeration Company. Paragraph no.3 of the plaint refers to the recovery certificate and the proclamation issued by the recovery officer for sale of the land. The plaintiff also conte