( 1 ) MR. RAVINDRA R. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that petitioner No. 5 has expired on 28-12-2001 and his legal heirs are not desirous of persuing the matter and, therefore, he submits that the matter may be treated as for petitioners No. 1 to 4 only. Mr. Shah further states that the rule is served by direct service and some of the respondents have refused and the affidavit of service of rule including for refusal is filed and taken on record.

( 2 ) SINCE in all these petitions common facts and common questions are involved, they are being dealt with together.

( 3 ) THE contention raised by the petitioners is that the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 Society, Mathuriyanagar Cooperative Housing Society (referred hereinafter as "the Society") has entered into the settlement contrary to and dehors the resolution passed by the General Body of the society.

( 4 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members of the society and Lavad Suits No. 95/1996, 96/1996, 97/1996 and 98/1996 were filed by the Society for the removal of the enchroachment over the land belong to the society. In all the aforesaid lavad suits,