SHANTHINAGAR HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V. SHASHIKUMAR Vs. SHANTHI NAGAR HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 5 r/w. Section 114 of C.P.C., the petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 23.12.2008 passed by this Court in WA No. 1199 of 2007 c/w. W.P. No. 10726 of 2007 interalia on the ground that in the said judgment, the rights of the petitioner -Society have been adjudicated upon without impleading it as a party to the said proceedings and without giving an opportunity of being heard to it Therefore, it is urged that the said judgment is required to be reviewed and the matter may be heard on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner -Society and dispose off the same. It is also contended in tins petition that this Court having recorded a finding that the question as to the identity or genuineness of a Co -operative Society cannot be the subject of an enquiry either under Section 64 or under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and that such a dispute will have to be adjudicated only by a Civil Court, it has proceeded to record a finding on the said aspect of the matter and has held the 1st Respondent -Society is the genuine society and therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as such, the judgment passed by this Court required to be reviewed. Petitioner has filed application seeking permission to file Review Petition for the reasons stated supra.

(2.) WE have heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents - 1 and 3/Caveators, who have entered caveat.

(3.) AS could be seen from the grounds urged in this review petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the finding of this Court that the dispute with regard to the genuineness of the society cannot be the subject of an enquiry either under Section 64 or under Section 70 of the Act is erroneous in law and it is an error apparent on the face of the record and that this Court having held that the Joint Registrar is not the Competent Authority to inquire into the dispute with regard to the genuineness of the society, this Court has erred in assuming such power in itself in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in giving a finding that Respondent No. 1 is the genuine society. This Court ought to have restricted its power only to quash the orders passed by the authorities and it should have left the matter to be agitated by the parties before the competent forum with regard to the question as to which of the society is genuine and that the finding of this Court that the 1st respondent is the genuine society, in the absence of the petitioner society, has substantially affected the rights of the petitioner -society, as such, the judgment of this Court required to be reviewed.