1. Mr. Inamdar, learned counsel for the Applicant, seeks permission to delete the name of Respondent No.1, as he has expired, and his legal heir, i.e. Respondent No.2, is already on record. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard Mr. Inamdar, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Ms. Ghule, learned counsel for the Respondents.

3. By this Revision Application, preferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Applicant is challenging the order dated 21st August 2015 passed by the District Judge-1, Solapur, thereby allowing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.9 of 2015 preferred by the Respondents herein and setting aside the order dated 28th November 2014 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, below “Exhibit-1” in Regular Civil Suit No.409 of 2013.

4. By the order dated 28th November 2014, the Trial Court has returned the plaint filed by the Respondents-Original Plaintiffs, under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, for presentation before the appropriate Cooperative Court.

5. The brief facts of the present Revision Application are to the effect that, the subject matter of the Suit is a plot bearing No.9/16, admeasuring 92.98 sq.mtrs., out of Survey No.32/A1/3 (Old Survey No.307/A1/3), along with a building constructed thereon, admeasuring 250 sq.ft., situate at Nehru Nagar, Solapur. The said property is stated to be owned by “Mukundrao Ambedkar Sahakari Gruhrachna Sanstha Limited”. Respondent No.2-Ashok is the son of Respondent No.1, born from his first wife, namely, Parvati Waghe; whereas, present Applicant is the daughter of late Satyabhama Mule, the second wife of Respondent No.1, born from the first husband of Satyabhama, who died on 4th August 2012.

6. Respondent No.1 was the Member of the Society. He has purchased the said plot and constructed house thereon. As per the case of Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 was suffering from serious illness and taking disadvantage thereof, Applicant got executed the 'Sale-Deed' of the suit property, dated 20th August 2011 and, therefore, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed the Suit before the Trial Court for cancellation of the said 'Sale-Deed' on the ground that, it is illegal, null and void and Respondent No.2 is, thus, having half share in the suit property. The relief of perpetual injunction was also claimed for restraining the Applicant from creating third party interest in the suit property.

7. After the Applicant appeared in the Suit, she filed an application at “Exhibit-20” for framing preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the Suit on the count that, the disputed transaction of the suit property was touching the business of the Cooperative Society and, therefore, the Co-operative Court alone has jurisdiction to decide the Suit.

8. Accordingly, the Trial Court framed the necessary preliminary issue and both the parties were given an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. Respondent No.2-Original Plaintiff filed his affidavit-in-evidence and on the basis of the evidence produced on record, the Trial Court was pleased to hold that, as the disputed transaction was touching the business of the Co-operative Society, only the Co-operative Court has jurisdiction to decide the Suit. Hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. Consequently, the Trial Court returned the plaint to the Respondents, under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC.

9. When this order was challenged before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court, after considering the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (for short, “Act of 1960”), and also the relevant case laws cited before it, was pleased to hold that, as the dispute pertains to the private sale transaction executed between the parties, the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to decide the Suit and, accordingly, the Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court.

10. In this Revision Application, the submission of lea