( 1 ) RULE. I have heard the Advocates for both the sides at length on merits, and, therefore, I proceed to dispose off this petition finally at this stage.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered Co-operative Milk Producers Union established under the provisions of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent restraining the Respondents from proceeding with a suit. No. 2 is a member-society of petitioner No. 1. The Managing Board of the petitionersociety had taken decision to amend some of its bye-laws pertaining to election of the Board of the Trustees. Thereafter, it was decided to put up the said decision and to amend the bye-laws for the purpose of approval by the General Body of the petitioner-society and for the purpose of doing same, the General Body Meeting of the petitioner-society was summoned on 20th June, 1996.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 society filed Lavad Case No. 924 of 1996 on 27-6- 1996 before the respondent No. 1 and obtained an order of ad interim injunction against the petitioner-society to discuss and to resolve the proposed amendments in the bye-laws. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a Caveat application before the Registrars Nominee. The Registrars, Nominee, without hearing the present petitioner had passed the said order of ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent No. 2 - society at 11-30 p. m. The petitioner has come before the Court to challenge the said order of the respondent No. 1 on 3 grounds :1. That the respondent No. 1 has passed the said order without hearing the petitioner inspite of the petitioner having filed a Caveat Application. 2. That the said order of respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 is challenged on 2 grounds : (1) That as per the distribution of the work order passed by the Registrar, the matter in question could not go before the respondent No. 1 and he had no jurisdiction to entertain such a matter and second ground regarding jurisdiction is based on the contention that in view of the provision of Secs. 13, 153, 155 and 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent No. 1 and consequently entertaining the application for ad interim injunction. 3. That the respondent No. 1 ought not to have passed the interim order as it amounts to final decision of the dispute.

( 4 ) THE claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondent No. 2 co-operative society. It is contended that the attempt made by the petitioner to come before this court for getting a relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should be rejected as the petitioner has got the efficacious remedy to approach to the higher authority against the order of the Registrars Nominee as provided by the Gujarat state Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition is ill-founded and not tenable in law. It is contended that there is a subsequent circular issued by the Registrar on 6th June, 1995 and as per the said circular, the respondent no. 1 had jurisdiction to entertain the said proceeding. It is further contended that only after the full trial, it is possible to hold as to whether the respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction to entertain the said suit or not. The said submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 are also adopted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and it is further contended that the State of Gujarat was a necessary party to the present proceeding.

( 5 ) AS regards the first contention of the petitioner, it must be said that while considering the application for ad interim injunction, the respondent No. 1 the learned Nominee of the Registrar has clearly mentioned in his order that though the petitioner had filed a Caveat Application before him, the petitioner had not produced any material on