- (1.) THE petitioner challenges in this writ petition, an order passed in review by the Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay in Review Application No. 9 of 1988 in Appeal No. 21 of 1988, where the order passed by the Appellate Court has been set aside by the Reviewing Authority by its order dated 9th December, 1988 in exercise of its power for review.
(2.) THE main dispute is that the allotment of plot in favour of the first respondent was illegally cancelled and the same was allotted to some other person. This cancellation was initially challenged before the original authority and the original authority has dismissed the suit filed by Appaji Babaji Sonale, whose legal representatives have filed this writ petition. Against that dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority the Co-operative Appellate Court. The appellate Court, as indicated earlier, allowed the appeal and set aside the original authoritys order. Against that order the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed the review application, purported to be under section 150 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The main reason for review, as taken before the reviewing authority, was that the evidence regarding the refund of certain shares were not produced either before the original authority or before the appellate authority and the same could be produced only at the stage of review and thus, on the basis of new material, the reviewing authority has reversed the earlier finding and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. It is in this background that the petitioner challenges the order of review dated 9th December, 1988 in this writ petition. By order dated 22nd January, 1999 the records and proceedings of the dispute C. C. S. No. 148 of 1983 on the file of the Judge, Co-operative Court No. I, Kolhapur were called by this Court for perusal. The said records were perused by me.
(3.) THE important question which is arising in this writ petition is that whether those documents were ever produced before the trial Court or the appellate authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes this proposition. However, he was not able to satisfy this Court that any material or that these documents were ever produced either before the original authority or the appellate authority. In these circumstances, I have no other option but to accept the contention of the respondent that for the first time these documents were produced before the reviewing authority. I have also perused the documents. Even though the documents are written in Marathi, with the help of the learned Counsel for the respondent, I could make out that there is entry that the shares have been returned and for that the amount has been paid to the petitioner. In view of this position, as I have observed in my earlier order dated 22-1-1999, there is no illegality committed by the reviewing authority in setting aside the Co-operative Appellate Courts order relying on these two new material which were produced before the reviewing authority.;