1. Rule.
Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt waives service of rule for respondent nos. 1 to 10 and Mr. A.Y. Kogze, learned Counsel waives service of rule for respondent no.11. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the order dated April 29,2011 passed by Gujarat Co-operative Societies Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Revision Application No. 240 of 2009 whereby the Tribunal was pleased to allow the Revision Application filed against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Board of Nominees below Exhibit 22 in Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006.
3. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the issue as framed by the present petitioner (one of the defendants in the said suit) should be considered as preliminary issue by the learned Board of Nominees in Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 or not. It transpires from the record that earlier the suit was filed by the present petitioner in 2002 and by award dated 16.6.2004 the said Lavad Suit being Lavad Suit No. 168 of 2002 was allowed and the judgment and award was passed in favour of the petitioner. It further transpires that at the time of execution of the said judgment and award passed in Lavad Suit No. 168 of 2002 which was filed only against the Co-operative Society and its Chairman the present Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 is filed before the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad by the persons who are actually occupying the dwellings.
4. Considering the above facts and the time which has passed by, particularly considering the fact that originally the suit was preferred by the petitioner way back in 2002 and the judgment and award was passed in favour of the petitioner on 16.4.2004 and further considering the fact that the Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 is also pending since almost six years by now, the interest of justice would be served if the Board of Nominees is directed to decide and dispose of the Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible.
5. Mr.
Vyas, Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt and Mr. A.Y.Kogze, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have no objection if such a direction is issued by this Court in the interest of justice.
6. Learned Counsel for the respective parties state before this Court that if such a course is adopted, the respective parties i.e. the petitioner, and more particularly respondent nos. 1 to 10 who are plaintiffs before the Board of Nominees in Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 as well as concerned society shall co-operate in the hearing and shall not make any endeavour to delay the proceeding of Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006.
7. In view of the above, without going into merits of the impugned order passed in Revision Application No. 240 of 2009 dated 29.4.2011 the following directions are issued :
[a] The Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, shall decide and dispose of Lavad Suit No. 319 of 2006 latest by 31.07.2012.
[b] The Board of Nominees shall give an opportunity of producing and adducing the relevant documents /evidence to all parties concerned and the parties concerned shall cooperate with the hearing before the Board of Nominees and shall not make any endeavour to ask for unnecessary adjournments.
[c] The Board of Nominees shall decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. 240 of 2009 dated 29.4.2011 as well as order passed below Exh. 22 dated 28.10.2009 and shall decide the suit on its own merits.
7. With this direction the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(R.M.
Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top