VIMAL PRASHANT SALVE Vs. KOLPEWADI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.4.2002passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2002.

(2.) The background facts of the case asunder:-

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, he was not party tothe original dispute. Therefore, there was noquestion of passing any order against him.It is further submitted that the agreementbetween the petitioner and owner of the vehicle was not tripartite agreement and thatwas agreement between the petitioner andthe owner of the vehicle and therefore, thedisputant was not competent to seek execution of the said agreement. It is further submitted that the agreement was hire purchaseagreement between the disputant and theborrower and guarantor and the present petitioner was no way concern with the saidagreement. It is further submitted that thereceiver appointed by the Court was supposeto recover the possession of the vehicle fromthe custody of original opponent No. 1 andnot from the petitioner. However, the CourtReceiver illegally recovered the possession ofthe vehicle from the custody of the presentpetitioner. It is further submitted that whenthe original claim is not against the presentpetitioner, the Co-operative Appellate Courtwas not suppose to pass any orders againstthe present petitioner. Therefore, learnedCounsel relying on the pleading and thegrounds in the petition and annexuresthereto, has submitted that the Member, Cooperative Appellate Court has exceeded itsjurisdiction and therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside.