C R ASHOK KUMAR Vs. K V SALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-7-1999 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in Appeal No. 228 of 1998 filed by him and the Society against the judgment and order dated 3-4-1998 passed by the Co-operative Court No. 4 in the Case No. IV/229 of 1989 filed by the original disputant-K. K. V. Salvi under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for a declaration that he was entitled to a flat in the said Society and possession thereof.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for their parties and I have carefully gone through the proceedings. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order for the reasons which follow. Both the courts below have held in favour of the disputant and have recorded facts against the petitioner and have castigated him and impeached his credibility and creditworthiness of his evidence and have further accused him of "prevarications-in-full" and of suppression of facts and documents not produced by him inspite of directions and inspite of his promises to produce on "the next date" which never came as observed by the trial Court. In the opinion of both the courts below the documents were not produced by him as they would have gone against him and would have helped the disputants case. It may further be observed by me at this stage itself that my learned brother H. L. Gokhale, J. , had also directed him by his specific order dated 22-9-1999 to produce the original documents as under but it appears that the petitioner has not complied with the said order of this Court also:

(3.) THE case of the disputant is very simple. He was the Chief Promoter of the Society and was one of the original members entitled to a flat in the Society. After the First General Meeting of the members the petitioner was elected to function as the Secretary of the Society and since then he did not communicate anything or any decision of the Society to the disputant though his address was available in the records of the society. According to him, the cost of the land was paid by him to the MHADA on behalf of the Society and he was always ready and willing to pay the instalments for the cost of construction but the petitioner as the Secretary of the society never demanded through usual/regular notices the specific or any amount with oblique motive.