( 1 ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society duly registered under the provisions of Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 are the members of the petitioner society. The petitioner society had taken loan from Mehsana District Central Coop Bank Limited for the purpose of construction of "a" type and "b" type flats. It is the case of the petitioner society that the amount of the loan is used for the purpose of construction of the flats and the society has apportioned the liability amongst its all members including the respondent members and it is also maintaining separate accounts for each member. It is the case of the petitioner that so far as the bank is concerned, there is only one loan account and bank is not maintaining any separate accounts for each member of the society.

( 2 ) THE contention of respondents No. 1,2, and 3 is that the petitioner floated a scheme by giving public advertisement that if the members of the petitioner society, who are interested to pay off the amount of outstanding loan, they may directly approach the bank and if such payment is made the bank shall give a rebate of 8% in interest. The case of respondents No. 1,2 and 3 is that the Bank had separately calculated the loan amount amongst the members of the petitioner society and as per the calculation of the Bank, as on 28-11-1992 respondent No. 1 had to pay an amount of Rs. 22,454. 00, respondent No. 2 had to pay Rs. 21,334. 00 and respondent No. 3 had to pay Rs. 21,977. 00 and, therefore, respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 were called upon by the Bank to pay up the said amounts and accordingly respondents No. 1, 2, and 3, by showing their bonafide, paid up their loan amount. It is also the case of respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 that the Bank has issued a discharge certificate also as and when the aforesaid amount was paid by respondents No. 1, 2, and 3.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, in the year 1994, the Bank filed lavad suit for the recovery of Rs. 92,49,272. 00 against the petitioner society being lavad suit No. 365/1994 and the Bank in the said suit who was plaintiff therein obtained attachment before judgement. Since respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 had already paid up the amount of the outstanding of the bank, on the basis of the discharge certificate, they moved an application before the learned Nominee in the aforesaid suit on the ground that no amount is outstanding and, therefore, the flats which are in occupation of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 may be discharged from the attachment before judgement or in any case, attachment may be lifted and injunction may also be vacated. The learned Nominee on 2-8-1995, upon the application of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 below Ex. 27, passed the order, whereby the injunction is vacated qua the property belonging to respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 allotted by the society and the said suit is pending even today. It appears that respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 wanted to transfer their respective flats by way of sale and, therefore, they submitted an application to the society on 5-12-1996. In response thereto, the society communicated to respondent No. 1 namely, Jageshkumar Chinubhai that the amount outstanding of the loan is of Rs. 1,45,469/= and, therefore, said amount may be paid first and, thereafter the transfer application shall be considered. It is under these circumstances respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 approached to the District Registrar by submitting the application under Rule 14 (11) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Rules for appropriate directions. The District Registrar, after hearing petitioner society passed the order dated 29-5-1997, whereby the District Registrar recorded that the suit is pending. However, the District Registrar found that if the members are ready to comply with the conditions of the transfer, the same should be considered by the society and if the amount is already deposited