Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by Wajedkhan Usmankhan Pathan challenging the judgment and order dated 12-07-2007 passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court, Aurangabad, which confirmed the order dated 01-07-2006 of the Cooperative Court, Aurangabad in Dispute No. 154 of 2002. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Ellora Power Loom Co-operative Society and sought recovery of money and possession of a plot from the respondents. The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute on the ground that the applicant was not a member of the society and thus had no locus standi. The Appellate Court affirmed this finding. The applicant then filed the present revision. The High Court examined the records and found that the applicant had not produced any documentary evidence such as a share certificate or membership register to prove his membership. The courts below had concurrently held that the applicant was not a member. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error, which was absent. The revision was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Locus Standi - Non-Member Dispute - Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The applicant, claiming to be a member of the society, filed a dispute for recovery of money and possession of a plot. The Cooperative Court and Appellate Court concurrently held that the applicant was not a member of the society and thus had no locus standi to file the dispute. The High Court upheld these findings, noting that the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence of membership. Held that a non-member cannot maintain a dispute under Section 91 of the Act (Paras 2-5).
B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Concurrent Findings - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in revision declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, as the applicant did not demonstrate any jurisdictional error or perversity. The revision application was dismissed with costs. Held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who is not a member of a cooperative society can maintain a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and whether the revision application against concurrent findings of the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court is maintainable.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Cooperative society dispute
- Non-member
- Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- Revision jurisdiction
- Concurrent findings
- Costs
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 2
Civil Revision Application No.132 of 2007
Mr. S.V. Chandole for applicant; None for the respondents
Wajedkhan Usmankhan Pathan
Sk. Nisar Sk. Sattar, Administrator/Manager, Power Loom Society, Ex-Chairman, M. Nawab Ellora Power Loom Co.Op. Society
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the judgment and order of the Cooperative Appellate Court confirming the order of the Cooperative Court dismissing the dispute for lack of locus standi.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the orders of the Cooperative Court and Appellate Court and to allow the dispute for recovery of money and possession of plot.
Filing Reason
The applicant claimed to be a member of the Ellora Power Loom Co-operative Society and filed a dispute for recovery of money and possession of a plot, but the courts below held he was not a member.
Previous Decisions
The Cooperative Court, Aurangabad, in Dispute No. 154 of 2002, dismissed the dispute on 01-07-2006 holding that the applicant was not a member. The Cooperative Appellate Court, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 147 of 2006, confirmed that order on 12-07-2007.
Issues
Whether the applicant was a member of the Ellora Power Loom Co-operative Society and had locus standi to file the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he was a member of the society and entitled to maintain the dispute.
The respondents did not appear to contest the revision.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who is not a member of a cooperative society cannot maintain a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the applicant that he is the member of the Ellora Power Loom Co-operative Society...
The Cooperative Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the applicant is not the member of the society...
In the absence of any documentary evidence, the courts below have rightly held that the applicant is not the member of the society...
Procedural History
The applicant filed Dispute No. 154 of 2002 before the Cooperative Court, Aurangabad, which was dismissed on 01-07-2006. The applicant appealed to the Cooperative Appellate Court, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 147 of 2006, which was dismissed on 12-07-2007. The applicant then filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 132 of 2007 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
