SURESH BHOGILAL PATEL Vs. ISMAILBHAI VALIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the question for consideration of this Court is, whether it was open for the Board of Nominees and in turn, the Tribunal to oust the petitioner, by rejecting his application under Order 14 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in view of the decisions of this Court in the case of Lokhandwala Irfanbhai Hanifbhai v. Dabhoi Mercantile Cooperative Society Limited reported in 2014 (1) GLR 786 and in the case of Dipakbhai Prahaladbhai Patel v. Rameshbhai Tribhovandas reported in 2016(2) GLR 976, wherein this Court had held that while deciding a suit, the Board of Nominees would have no jurisdiction to decide the issues raised before it by virtue of preliminary issues, may be that of limitation and/or jurisdiction.

(2.) Mr. Ravindra A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners has extensively argued on merits to suggest that the Lavad Suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 was time barred by limitation, firstly on the ground that in a Civil Suit filed by the same respondents, on an application made by the petitioners, the Civil Court did not entertain the suit on the ground of it being time barred. For the same relief, a Lavad Suit was also filed and hence, an application under Order 14, which the Court did not entertain. He would further submit that the decisions in the case of Lokhandwala Irfanbhai Hanifbhai (Supra) and Dipakbhai Prahaladbhai Patel (Supra) did not take into consideration, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited v. P.R. Mankad and others reported in 1979(3) SCC 123. He relies on paragraph Nos. 22, 23 and 24 thereof, which read as under:

(3.) Mr. Shah would place reliance on Sub Section (2) of Section 97 to contend that the provisions of Limitation Act would regulate the proceedings before the Registrar as if the disputes were a suit, and the Registrar a Civil Court. Hence, Rule. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, while Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No. 9.