- (1.)HEARD learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By-consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.
(2.)THE Petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 16-10-2002 passed by Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Pune in Appeal against order No. 194 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents against the order dated 3-10-2002 passed by the Cooperative Court, Kolhapur in SCCK No. 1238 of 2002. By the said order, the Cooperative Court had rejected the application filed by the Respondents for action under Order 39 Rule 3 of code of Civil Procedure against the Petitioners. Consequent to the appeal being allowed by the impugned order, the Cooperative Appellate court had set aside the said order of the Cooperative Court and has allowed the application filed by the Respondents to strike off the defence of the Petitioners in exercise of powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, and accordingly, the defence of the Petitioners has been struck off. In the process, the lower Appellate Cooperative Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioners in relation to certain observations made by the Cooperative Court in its order dated 3-10-2002.
(3.)THE challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of C. P. C. are not applicable to the Cooperative court in view of various specific provisions contained in the Maharashtra cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the said Rules' ).