1. In all these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in the appeals filed by them against the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees, Mehsana in Lavad Suits filed against them by the respondent-People’s Cooperative Credit Society Limited.

2. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10481/2013 had preferred Appeal No.6/2013 before the Tribunal against the award made in Lavad Suit No. 245/2007. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10482/2013 had preferred Appeal No. 10/2013 against the award made in Lavad Suit No.425/2007. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10483/2013 had preferred Appeal No. 9/2013 against the award made in Lavad Suit No.835/2007. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No.10484/2013 had filed appeal No. 7/2013 against the award made in Lavad Suit No.246/2007 and the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 10485/2013 had preferred appeal No. 8/2013 against the award made in Lavad Suit No.833/2007.

3. Since common questions of law arise in all these petitions, the petitions are heard and decided by this common order.

4. In the suits filed by respondent No.1, the learned Board of Nominees granted conditional leave to the petitioners to defend the suits. However, the petitioners did not comply with the condition of deposit of amount for leave to defend. The order imposing condition for leave to defend was also not challenged in higher forum. The Board of Nominees, therefore, proceeded to decide the suits on the basis of the evidence led by respondent No.1 and passed awards for recovery of the suit amounts against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the judgment and award before the Tribunal by filing appeals.

5. Before the Tribunal, it was urged that the petitioners were ready to deposit the amounts as per the condition for leave to defend and request was made to remand the matter to the Board of Nominees. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners lost opportunity to defend the suit by not complying with the condition imposed by the Board of Nominees and the Board of Nominees was justified in passing the awards against the petitioners on the basis of the evidence available with it. The Tribunal thus dismissed the appeals. The petitioners are thus before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate Mr. H.M.Parikh appearing for the petitioners submitted that in regular appeals preferred before the Tribunal against the awards made by the Board of Nominees, it was open to the petitioners to call in question the conditional order made by the Board of Nominees for leave to defend. Mr. Parikh submitted that the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal Regulations permits taking of all the grounds available under law in the appeals filed under section 102 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) against the final award made by the Board of Nominees in lavad suits and, therefore, the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the conditional order of leave to defend.

7. Mr. Parikh submitted that before the Tribunal, the petitioners had shown their willingness to deposit the amount as per condition for leave to defend and requested to remand the matter to the Board of Nominees to give opportunity to the petitioners to defend the suits. However, the Tribunal turned down such request without any justiciable reasons. Mr. Parikh submitted that when the Board of Nominees granted leave to defend though on condition of depositing the amount, it was on finding that the petitioners were raising triable issues and therefore when the petitioners were ready to deposit the amount as per the condition for leave to defend, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Board of Nomine