( 1 ) ). THE short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members of ONGC Nagar Society situated in Ranip, Ahmedabad. It appears that Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Limited filed lavad suit No. 2170/1995 before the Registrars Board of Nominees at Ahmedabad and the said suit was filed against ONGC Nagar Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred as the "society" ). The contention of the petitioners is that the office bearers of the society did not take appropriate steps for defending in the suit. The contention of the petitioners is that since no proper steps were taken by the office bearers of the society, the suit came to be decreed and the award was passed by the learned Nominee on 23-10-1996. It is the case of the petitioners that the loan was taken without any resolution and the loan has been taken from respondent No. 2 Bank in the year 1982-83, whereas the suit was filed in the year 1986 and the award came to be passed ex-parte. The case of the petitioners is that when the execution proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount by the Recovery Officer, the petitioners had filed SCA No. 1886/1998 before this Court and this Court had directed the petitioners to make an application for preferring an appeal as third party interested in the matter. The petitioners, therefore, preferred an application for leave to prefer appeal being MCA 32/2001 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the award dated 23-10-1996 in lavad case No. 2170/1995. The learned Tribunal heard the application No. 32/2001 for leave to prefer appeal and passed the order on 22-2-2002, whereby the said application No. 32/2001 is dismissed and that order is under challenge in this petition.

( 2 ) ). THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioners are the members of the Housing Cooperative Society, who are directly affected by the outcome of the award and it is the contention of the petitioners that since the award is to be executed against the property which are in occupation of the petitioners as members of the society, they are directly affected by the award of the Nominee and, therefore, being aggrieved parties, they must be allowed to prefer appeal, more particularly when the award is an ex-parte and the office bearers of the society had not taken any proper care to even defend the suit.

( 3 ) ). ON behalf of the respondent Bank, Mr. Mehta has supported the order passed by the Tribunal, contending that the members have no individual identity and they can represent their case through the society only and it is submitted that the members have no individual right to prefer appeal since the privity of contract is between the society and the bank and the execution proceedings will be executed against the property of the society and, therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners, who are mere members of the society.

( 4 ) ). IT may be noted that on behalf of the petitioners as well as on behalf of the respondents more or less similar contentions are raised, which were sought to be canvased in SCA No. 10725/2001 in the case of "sureshbhai Babubhai Sunara Vs. Ahmedabad District Coop. Bank Ltd. ", which was also a petition preferred by the members of the Housing Coop. Society against the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the appeal against the ex-parte award, which was passed in favour of Ahmedabad District Coop. Bank Ltd. It is worthwhile to note that this Court in case of "sureshbhai" (supra) at para 10 of the said judgement has observed as under:"10. SO far as the contention of Vakharia that there is no privity of contract between the bank and the members of the society are concerned, prima facie, it appears that in every cooperative society the members are not the third party to any litigation of the society, more particularly, when it is for the purpose of recovery of amount from the property of the society wh