The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue of membership as well, and parallel remedies for the same cause of action could not be pursued simultaneously.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. By the present petition, the petitioners assail order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad in Revision Application No. 20 of 2021. By that order, the revision filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has been partly allowed and the proceedings are remanded to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad for fresh decision about the membership of 1666 members of petitioner No. 1 society. Earlier, both the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as well as District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies had held that the issue of validity of resolution admitting 1666 members by the petitioner was not in their jurisdiction and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were advised filing of dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘Act of 1960’). It is common ground that in pursuance of those decisions of Assistant and District Dy. Registrars, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have filed dispute before the Co-operative Court challenging the proceedings of the meeting dated 22.03.2018 and resolution adopted therein.

3. The dispute between petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has arisen on account of admission of 1666 new members in Petitioner society by adopting resolution in the meeting of the managing committee of petitioners on 22.03.2018. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were aggrieved by the admission of such new members and filed application dated 17.08.2019 before the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking cancellation of the said new members. After conducting enquiry in the matter, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Khultabad recorded an opinion in his inquiry report dated 27.01.2021 that the issue of deciding validity of resolution adopting new members was outside the jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar and that same would fall under jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Act of 1960. Accordingly, the District Deputy Registrar issued communication dated 12.02.2021 to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 advising them to approach the Cooperative Court under section 91 of the Act of 1960.

4. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 continued pursuing the matter before the District Deputy Registrar by filing complaint dated 16.03.2021 and again by communication dated 01/06.04.2021, the District Deputy Registrar advised them to approach the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Act of 1960. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 thereafter, filed dispute No. 94/2021 before the Co-operative Court challenging the proceedings of the meeting dated 22.03.2018 and the resolution No. 3 adopted therein. The said dispute is pending. During pendency of that dispute, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 simultaneously moved the Divisional Joint Registrar by filing Revision No. 20/2021 in July, 2021. That revision came to be partly allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by order dated 10.11.2021 remanding the matter for fresh decision to the District Deputy Registrar. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed the Divisional Joint Registrar on 10.12.2021.

5. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel would submit that the revision filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was not maintainable in view of filing of Dispute No. 94/2021 before the Co-operative Court. He would submit that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 cannot be permitted to adopt two parallel remedies in respect of the same cause of action. Mr. Suryawanshi would further contend that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 accepted and acted upon the decisions taken by the Assistant Registrar and District Deputy Registrar to the effect that the issue of validity of resolution admitting new members was not within their jurisdiction and accordingly, filed dispute under section 91 of the Act of 1960 before the Co-operative Court. Ha