The petitions are arising out of the interim orders pending Lavad Suits before the learned Board of Nominee. Since the facts and issues in both the petitions are similar, they are heard and decided together finally at the admission stage with the consent of the learned advocates for the contesting parties.

2. Challenge made in both the petitions is to the orders dated 21.8.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short), whereby the Tribunal rejected two different revision applications preferred by the petitioners against the interim orders of injunction passed by the learned Board of Nominee in two different Lavad Suits preferred by the respondent No.1- the Co-operative Housing Society against the petitioners.

3. The facts in nutshell need to be referred for the purpose of deciding the petitions are as under:

Respondent No.1 is a registered Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners who purchased the plot Nos.4 and 1 respectively in the Society came to be inducted as members by the Society somewhere in the month of November 2006. It is their case that the Society issued No Objection Certificate to them for putting up commercial construction on their plots and based on such certificate, they got the plans sanctioned from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for putting up the construction for commercial purpose. It is also their case that the plans put up before the Corporation for approval were signed by the Chairman of the society and based on approved plans, they started construction for commercial purpose. It is their further case that such construction was being carried on in the knowledge of respondent No.1 society, however the respondent No.1 Society filed Lavad Suits before the learned Board of Nominee on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to put up any kind of commercial construction. In such suits, the respondent No.1 Society asked for interim injunction by filing applications at Exh.6 restraining the petitioners from making any kind of commercial construction and using the plots for commercial or any other purpose except the residential purpose and also from transferring, alienating or in anyway assigning the rights to anybody in the plots in question.

The learned Board of Nominee allowed the said applications and passed orders for maintaining the status-quo in respect of the plots in question.

The above-said orders passed by the learned Board of Nominee were challenged by the petitioners by preferring revision applications before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal and orders passed below Exh.6 by the learned Board of Nominee were set aside. The respondent No.1 Society challenged the said orders passed by the Tribunal before this Court by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 8193 of 2008 and 576 of 2008 and this Court allowed those petitions with other petitions and remanded the matters to the Tribunal to decide the revision applications afresh in view of the observations made by this Court in its judgment. The petitioners challenged such orders of remand before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. with an observation that the Tribunal shall decide the revision applications without being influenced by the findings recorded by the learned single Judge of the High Court in its judgment and order while remanding the matters to the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners is that the Tribunal still considered the observations made by this Court in earlier petitions and without independently considering the contentions raised by the petitioners rejected their revision applications by the impugned orders.

4. I have heard learned advocates for the parties.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Anshin Desai appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no prohibition in the bye-laws of the society for making commercial construction on the plots in the Society. Mr. Desai submitted that since the petitioners were inducted as mem