The transfer of a flat by a member of a cooperative housing society to another person is subject to the written consent of the society and the prior permission of the Registrar, as required by Rule 142(1) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987.

( 1 ) IN this appeal an order dated 16th November, 1990, which was passed dismissing a pro interesse suo application, has been challenged.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are as under: a suit being Suit No. 406 of 1997 was filed by the Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said 'bank') against one Anamika Industries and its partners namely (1) Shri Rajkamal Prabhas and (2) Shri Prem Sehgal inter alia, on the ground that the respondents were unable to pay the dues of the Bank. The appellants were not parties to the said suit.

( 3 ) IN the said suit the Bank filed an application for appointment of receiver and injunction. On the said application, the learned trial Court appointed Joint Receiver on 8. 5. 1987 over the hypothecated stocks of the respondent No. 2 and an order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of the hypothecated stocks.

( 4 ) THE sale of hypothecated stock could fetch Rs. 75,000/- and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 13. 2. 1989 and by the said order, the learned single Judge directed the sale proceeds to be given to the Bank after deducting therefrom the remuneration of the Receiver. The Bank's dues were, however, to the extent of more than Rs. 14 lakhs.

( 5 ) SOMETIME in the month of July, 1990, the Bank apprehended that the respondents will sell the flats owned by them namely the Flat No. 6 at Mandevilla Garden and Flat No. 10a at Lord Sinha Road and moved another interlocutory application, inter alia, for appointment of Receiver to make inventory of those flats and also take possession of those flats and also for an appropriate order of injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from dealing with or disposing of or encumbering those two flats and to furnish full security of Rs. 25,01,562. 94 paise being the outstanding dues of the said Bank and also with a prayer for necessary attachment of flats before judgment and various other prayers. On such application a Receiver was appointed on 6. 8. 1990 to make inventory of the said two flats and the Receiver was directed to take symbolic possession and an order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents form dealing with or disposing of the flats. In the said application, a further order was made on 17. 8. 1990 directing the Receiver to take possession of the flat at Lord Sinha Road by breaking open the locks of the said flat.

( 6 ) THE case of the appellants is that they found a notice hung up on the outer door of the Lord Sinha Road flat and from the said notice, the appellants came to know that a Receiver has been appointed in terms of the order of the Court dated 6. 8. 1990 and the Receiver wanted to take possession of the said flat in terms of the Court's order. Immediately thereafter on 20. 8. 1990, the appellants filed an application pro interesse suo for vacating the orders dated 6. 8. 1990 and 17. 8. 1990. On such application, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Receiver to continue in possession of the Lord Sinha Road flat, but directed the Receiver not to interfere with the occupancy of the said flat and an order of status quo was passed.

( 7 ) THE said application, however, was dismissed by a reasoned order by the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the Deed of Transfer by which the appellants are claiming ownership of the flats in question was not registered and the ownership of the Lord Sinha Road flat (hereinafter referred to as the said 'flat') was transferred to the appellants by Prem Sehgal, the respondent in the suit, without the consent of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The learned Judge also held that from the facts of the case it appeared that the transaction was pushed through in a 'hot haste' and with 'ulterior motive'.

( 8 ) IN assailing the said order dated 16. 11. 1990, the case sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the said flat