Decided in Favour of :
Partly Petitioner
Petition Partly Allowed

Ms. H.N. Devani, J.—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 16.02.2002 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (Annexure-I) in Revision Application No. 41 of 2002 as well as order dated 22.01.2002 passed by the Board of Nominees, Surat in Lavad Case No. 376/90 (Annexure-C).

2. The facts stated briefly are that the Respondent No. 1, Mathureshnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Society) had instituted Lavad Suit No. 376/90 before the Board of Nominees seeking a declaration that the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are bogus members of the society, holding and occupying Plots No. 40 and 41, respectively. The respondent Society also prayed for interim injunction restraining the petitioners from making further construction over the respective plots in the society. It appears that an ex parte injunction order was passed in favour of the respondent-society and an application Exh. 80 was filed in connection with breach of the said injunction. The orders passed on those applications were challenged by the petitioners before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 18.10.1993, which came to be allowed on 31.01.1994, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties within a month. There were further proceedings before this Court as well as the Board of Nominees and the Tribunal, which ultimately culminated into an order dated 24.04.2000 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6266 of 1998. The aforesaid order dated 24.04.2000, insofar as the it is relevant for the purpose of the present petition reads as under:

“Be that as it may, the Special Civil Application is disposed of in the terms as what the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that they will complete their evidence in time bound programme. The plaintiffs shall complete their evidence within two months commencing from 12.06.2000. They themselves will produce evidence, meaning thereby, the Board of Nominees will not issue any Summons etc. for production of the evidence, meaning thereby, the plaintiffs themselves without any assistance and aid of the Board of Nominees shall produce the evidence. Thereafter, the defendants will complete their evidence within two months. They have also to produce all of their evidence without any assistance or aid of the Board of Nominees. The Board of Nominees will then pass the final order within a period of one month. This programme shall be scrupulously followed by the Board of Nominees and compliance of the same be reported to this Court. XXXX”

3. It appears the pursuant to the aforesaid order the Lavad Suit proceeded further and the evidence on behalf of the respondent-society (original plaintiff) was recorded. Thereafter, the Petitioners No. 1 and 2, individually executed Power-of-Attorneys dated 7.12.2001 in favour of Petitioner No. 3 authorizing him to give depositions on their behalf as well as to take all necessary action in connection therewith and to perform all acts in relation to the case in the pending proceedings of Lavad Suit No. 376/90 and also for consequential acts in that behalf in the said proceedings. By an application Exh. 264, certified Xerox copies of the said Power-of-Attorneys were produced before the learned Nominee on 5.1.2002. The learned Nominee on the same day ordered to take the certified Xerox copies of both the Power-of-Attorneys on record of the said Lavad Suit.

4. Thereafter, on 07.01.2002, the respondents filed an application Exh. 265 on the following grounds : (1) objecting against permission being granted to the petitioners to produce the Power-of-Attorneys; (2) praying that if the case of the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 claiming to be members is true, they should depose before the court as witnesses to prove the same; (3) that earlier, in these very proceedings Power-of-Attorney had been misused and the pr