The petitioner, a primary Co-operative society, a juristic person, as has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, has been never affected by the impugned order in the first place. For whatever reason, it has chosen through its Secretary to challenge Ext.P7 order. As this Court is usually avers to non-suiting a party on a technicality, it has felt it desirable to entertain the writ petition. And it did entertain.

2. The facts in brief are that respondents 1 and 2 filed an Election Petition before the 16th respondent, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, assailing the election of respondents 5 to 14. In ARC No. 79 of 2012, respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 36 of 2015 for a direction to open the election records and examine the Secretary of the Bank with respect to its contents. The Arbitration Court eventually passed Ext.P7 order to the following effect:

"However, nothing preclude this Court to examine and verify the documents produced by the Counter Petitioner/Defendant as per the direction of the Court. It can also be examined and verified either directly by the Court itself or through any authorised person/expert in the presence of Counsel appeari