P AND T CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED GIRIPETH NAGPUR Vs. JUDGE CO OPERATIVE COURT GANESHPETH NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two writ petitions the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay (Appellate courts for short) in two revision application affirming the order passed by the Co-operative Court, one allowing the application for adding parties and the other for consequential amendment passed on 4th and 27th February, 1985, are being challenged.

(2.) Nine disputants, present respondents Nos. 3 to 11 filed Election Dispute No. 663 of 1984 before the Co-operative Court, Nagpur against petitioners Nos. 4 to 16 challenging the elections to various offices of the petitioner No. 1, the Posts and Telegraphs Central Co-operative Society, Ltd. The dispute was resisted by the written statement dated 7-11-1984 on various grounds, one of them being that the dispute was bad as the society and other necessary parties to the dispute had not been impleaded. It may be mentioned that the results of the elections which were being disputed, were declared on 24th September, 1984 and the dispute was raised on 19-10-1984. After the contentions were raised in the written statement on 7-11-1984 an application for joining parties and amendments was filed on 19-11-1984. The contesting respondents filed reply to it on 7-12-1984 and the order permitting the addition of parties was passed on 4-2-1985 and the amendment came to be allowed by another order passed on 7-2-1985. These orders were questioned by filing two separate revisions before the Appellate Court which were dismissed on 11-10-1985.

(3.) The contentions raised by Shri R.B. Pendharkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are that the dispute could not have been entertained by the Co-operative Court as it was not a properly constituted dispute and amendment to an election dispute was not permissible. Secondly, it was urged that since the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to suits had to be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, the requirements of Order 1, Rule 10(5) had to be satisfied and as the period of limitation prescribed for election petition was of two months under section 92(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and as under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of Order 1, the proceedings as against the person added as respondent shall be deemed to have begun only after the service of the summons the claim against the newly added respondents to the dispute was barred by time.