ORAL JUDGMENT

1.Rule was issued by this Court on 9-7-1997 and certain orders were granted in favour of the petitioner. In short, the case of the petitioner is that though Caveat was filed by the petitioner before the Cooperative Tribunal, the Cooperative Tribunal ignoring the Caveat had granted ex-parte interim relief without hearing the petitioner. Considering these averments of the petitioner, this Court had stayed the order passed by the Tribunal till further orders. This interim order has operated through out the pending of the petition since 1997. The Board of Nominees had initially not granted any interim relief in the matter against the petitioner and it was only subsequently that the Tribunal granted the interim injunction ignoring the Caveat filed by the petitioner. The situation therefore, has been that Court's order passed on

9-7-1997 has operated all along.

2.In facts of the present case, having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find it appropriate that this situation should not change during the currency and till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Board of Nominees. On account of pendency of this petition perhaps the Lavad Suit filed by resp