The plea regarding a party's status or jurisdiction should be raised at the appropriate level of the legal process and cannot be raised for the first time in a higher court.

Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — This application would dispose of a miscellaneous application dated 4.12.96 made by 19 individual members of the Airport Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. The necessary back- ground is that this Commission allowed Complaint No. C-313/92 filed by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Aggarwal, one of the members of the Society by order 23.7.93. The opposite parties arrayed in the complaint were the Co-operative Society aforesaid through its Secretary Mr. G.M. Kaul, Registrar, Co-operative Societies and D.D.A. The order directed the Society to pay an amount of Rs. 68,210/- to the complainant within a period of three months. In case of default, the said Society was liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- as costs. The decision of this Commission was affirmed and Society's appeal against the order was dismissed by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 409/93 decided on 30.1.96. The National Commission dismissed the appeal with Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Against the order passed in appeal by the National Commission SLP was filed in the Supreme Court. The contention put forward was that the Co-operative Society rendered services to the members free of charge and, therefore, the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act and the FORA constituted under the Act had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not permit the appellant to raise the said contention for the first time in the Apex Court. It was noted that the such a plea had not been taken in the FORA i.e., me State Commission as well as National Commission and could not be permitted to be taken in the SLP which was, accordingly, dismissed by the order dated 9.7.96.

2. The complainant, thereafter, got revived proceedings for enforcement of the order. Notice was issued to the respondent Society. In the reply, it was stated that a General Body Meeting had been called to formally allow the Executive Committee to comply with the order by raising funds by contribution from the individual members. During the pendency of the said proceedings, however, the present application has been moved by 19 individual members for permission to be impleaded in order that the members can protect their legitimate interests. The application has been opposed.

3. We have heard authorised representatives of the applicants (intervenor), the complainant as well as the Society.

4. The present proceedings are not execution proceedings properly so-called. These are proceedings u/Section 27 for penal action being taken against the Executive Committee of the Society for failure to comply with the order which has acquired finality with the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court. The rights and liabilities of the parties stand finally adjudicated and me case cannot be re-opened either at the instance of the parties to the dispute or third persons.

5. Even otherwise the Co-operative Society, duly registered, in accordance with the Co-operative Societies Act, is a juristic person and it can sue and not be sued in its own name. In the present case, the Co-operative Society was sued through its Honorary Secretary. There was no defect in the constitution of the complaint on the ground of description of the said opposite party and the order passed by this Commission has been affirmed by the National Commission and SLP there-against has been dismissed. The contention on behalf of the applicants is, that the persons, who were responsible for causing delay in sending the name of the complainant to the Registrar so that he could be included in the draw of lots, should be held liable to pay the amount and all the members, who had nothing to do with the matter, should not be made to pay the amount and in order to protect their rights, they want to intervene in the present proceedings. We do not think that the members can intervene and have the matter re-opened. They may have their remedy against the perso