A/1 Co-Operative Houssing Soc Ltd. Vs M/S Jaikhsian and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2004)

A/1 Co-Operative Houssing Soc Ltd. Vs M/S Jaikhsian and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1915 OF 1987

 A-1 Co-operative Housing
 Soicety Ltd.
 270, Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006. .. Petitioners.
 Vs.

 1. M/s.R.Jaikishan & Co.
 270, Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006. ..
 2. Rajmal N.Javeri, Flat No.III,
 11th Floor, & Smt.Padma R.Javeri ..
 3. Sirish R.Javeri and
 Smt.Sushma R.Javeri,
 11th Floor, Flat No.112 ..
 4. Vinay R.Javeri,
 11th Floor, Flat No.113 ..
 5. Sunil R.Javeri
 11th Floor, Flat No.114 ..
 7. Dharamsey Trikamdas &
 Smt.Chandravati Trikamd
 11th Floor, Flat No.116 ..
 9. Rajendra Dinkerrai Joshi
 11th Floor, Flat No.118
 A-1 Apartments, 270,
 Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006. ..
 10. Shri L.M.Patil, Member of
 Maharashtra State Co-operative
 Appellate Tribunal ..
 11. Shri J.S.Patil, Judge, II
 Co-operative Court, Contractor
 Building, 2nd Floor, Ballard
 Estate, Bombay .. Respondents.

 Mr.Anil Sakhare with Mr.Dinesh P.Shah with Monik
 Khade for the petitioners.

 Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdhar with Mr.K.R.Dhanuka with
 Mr.J.P.Dhanuka for respondent no.1.

 Mr.P.V.Sawant with Mr.Navnath Patil for respondent
 nos.2 to 9.

 ALONGWITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 1987

 M/s.R.J.Krishna & Co.
 270, Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006 .. Petitioners.
 Vs.
 1.A-1 Co-operative Housing
 Society Ltd. A-1 Apartments
 Ground Floor, 270, Walkeshwar
 Road, Bombay 400 006 ..
 2(a) Shri Rajmal M.Jhaveri ..
 (b) Smt.Padma R.Jhaveri
 both at Flat No.111, 11th Floor ..
 3(a) Shri Shrish R.Jhaveri ..
 (b) Smt.Sushma R.Jhaveri
 both at Flat No.112 ..
 4. Shri Vijay R.Jhaveri
 at Flat No.113 ..
 5. Shri Sunil R.Jhaveri
 at Flat No.114 ..
 6(a) Mansingh Trikamdas Asher ..
 (b) Krishnakant Trikamdas Asher
 both R/o 458/468, Jadhavji
 Karakachhi, Bhatia Bldg.,
 3rd Floor, R.No.46, Jagannath
 Shankarseth Road, Girgaum,
 Bombay 400 002. ..
 (c) Mrs.Chandravati nee Trikamdas
 R/o Flat No.116, 11th Floor,
 A-1 Co-operative Housing Society
 A-1 Apartment, 270, Walkeshwar
 Road, Bombay 400 006. ..
 8.(a) Dinkarrai S.Joshi
 11th Floor,270, Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006. ..
 (b) Jaywant Dinkarrai Joshi
 96, Adarsha Co-op. Hsq. Society
 Athwa Lines, Surat ..
 (c) Barat Dinkarrai Joshi
 Shyam Niwas Co-op. Society
 Flat No.6, Bldg.No.8, 6th floor,
 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay ..
 (d) Rajendra Dinkarrai Joshi
 11th floor, 270, Walkeshwar Road
 bombay ..

 (e) Mrs.Jyoti Ashok Kothari
 (married daughter) 98, Adarsha
 Co-op. Hsq. Society, Athwa lines,
 Surat ..
 (f) Ms.Nuta Dinkarrai Joshi
 Asian Patk Apartment, Flat No.1,
 B-Adarsh Society, Athwa Lines,
 Surat ..
 10(a) Smt.Shakuntaladevi
 D.Parasrampuria ..
 (b) Mr.Arun Kumar D.Parasrampuria ..
 (c) Smt.Ushadevi R.Jhunjhunwala ..
 (d) Smt.Sudhadevi S. Berlia ..
 (e) Smt.Umadevi Anandkumar Jain ..
 (f) Smt.Rashmidevi Rajendra Padia ..
 (g) Smt.Neetadevi Padamkumar
 Singhania
 being their Power of Attorney
 holder Respondent No.10(b) having
 their address at B-2, 11th Floor,
 Matru Ashish Co-op. Hsg. Society
 Ltd. Napean Sea Road,
 Mumbai 400 036.
 11. Mr.Beniprasad Parasrampuria
 6th floor, Rewa Apartments,
 Bhulabhai Desai Road,
 Bombay 400 026. ..
 12. Mr.Ratanlal Parasrampuria
 14th floor, Rewa Apartments,
 Bhulabhai Desai Road,
 Bombay 400 006 ..
 13. Mr.Omprakash Parasrampuria
 16th floor, Rewa Apartments,
 Bhulabhai Desai Road
 Bombay 400 006 ..
 14.Mr.Krishankumar Parasrampuria
 A-1 Apartments, Flat No.40,
 270, Walkeshwar Road,
 Bombay 400 006 ..
 15. Mr.Biharilal Parasrampuria
 C/o.Sanjiv Builders Pvt. Ltd.
 Ring Road, Surat ..
 16. Mr.Satishkumar Parasrampuria
 Building No.1 above Central
 Bank of India, Sundernagar
 S.V. Road, Bombay 400 064 ..
 17. Shri L.H.Patil the member of
 Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate
 Court, ..
 18. Shri J.S.Patil, Judge,
 II Co-operative Court, Bombay .. Respondents.

 Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar with Mr.K.R.Dhanuka with
 Mr.J.P.Dhanuka for the petitioners.

 Mr.A.Y.Sakhare with Mr.Dinesh P.Shah with
 Ms.Monik Khade for respondent no.1.

 Mr.V.P.Sawant with Mr.Navanath R.Patil for
 respondent nos.2 to 5.

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.

DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2004

ORAL JUDGMENT:

 . Heard Mr.learned counsel for the petitioner
 and Mr.learned counsel for the respondent.

 2. These two writ petitions arise out of the

 common judgment and order dated 21.7.1986 rendered
 by the Co-operative Appellate Court by which three
 revision applications were disposed of. The first
 revision application was filed by the disputant
 (for short "the firm") who is respondent no.1 in
 the first Writ Petition No.1915 of 1987 and the
 petitioner in the second Writ Petition No.1585 of
 1987. The second revision was filed by original
 opponent no.1 - society (for short "the society")
 who is the petitioner in the first petition and
 respondent no.1 in the 2nd petition. The third
 revision was filed by the original opponent no.2 to

 9 who are respondent nos.2 to 9 in both the

 petitions (for short "respondent nos.2 to 9"). All
 three revisions were filed against the judgment and
 order dated 23.4.1986 passed by the Co-operative
 Court in the application seeking amendment of the
 dispute filed under section 91 of the Maharashtra
 Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the
 Act") bearing Arbitration Case No.CC/II/537/1870 of
 1973 by which the said application was partly
 allowed.

 3. The factual matrix that would be relevant
 and material for deciding the questions raised and
 involved in these two petitions is as follows: The
 firm filed a dispute application claiming various
 reliefs. The sum and substance of the reliefs
 claimed by the firm is that the society and the
 opponents be ordered and directed to complete the
 construction of the flats on the 10th floor and the
 garages on the ground floor and also the ground
 floor flats, the recreation hall etc. and handover
 possession thereof to the firm and their licencees
 as provided in the agreement dated 25.9.1963 and
 further that opponent nos.2 to 9, who are in
 occupation of the said flats be ordered to vacate
 the same. They have also prayed for damages from

 the society. In effect, the firm has prayed for
 specific performance of the agreement dated
 25.9.1963 entered into between them and the society
 and wherein the society had agreed to complete the
 construction and to handover the possession thereof
 to the firm. Respondent Nos.10 to 16 in Writ
 Petition No.1585 of 1987 are the
 beneficiaries-licencees (for short "Respondent

 Nos.10 to 16") of the petitioner-firm, who were
 named in the agreement of 1963 and, according to
 the firm, are entitled for their rights created
 under the said agrement. I will not like refer to
 the facts in detail as, in my opinion, they may not
 be necessary for deciding the questions involved in
 the instant writ petitions.

 4. The evidence in the instant case started

 with recording of the examination in chief of one
 Ratanlal on behalf of the firm on 4.8.1981 which
 concluded some time in 1985. Two more witnesses
 were examined in 1985, and the firm closed their
 evidence. The society started leading their
 evidence with the examination of one Tulsidas
 Sharma on 1.11.1985 and while his evidence was
 being recorded on 10.2.1986 the application was
 filed by the firm for amendment. The amendment was

 opposed by the society on various grounds. I am
 consciously avoiding to make reference to the
 amendment in view of the fact that merits of the
 amendment have not been challenged and even
 otherwise need not be considered at this stage.
 The amendment has been challenged only on two
 grounds to which I would be making reference while
 dealing with the submissions of Mr.Sakhare, learned
 senior counsel for the society. The amendment
 application was partly allowed by the Co-operative
 Court vide the order dated 23.4.1986 against which,
 as stated earlier, three revision applications came
 to be filed before the Co-operative Appellate
 Court. In all three revision applications the
 order of the trial court had been modified which is
 being challenged in these two petitions.

 5. I heard learned senior counsel for the firm
 and the society as also Mr.Sawant, learned counsel
 for respondent nos.2 to 9 at length. It may be
 noticed that respondent nos.2 to 9 have not
 challenged the order dated 21.7.1986 passed by the
 Appellate Court in their revision. With the
 assistance of the learned senior counsel for the
 parties I perused the impugned judgments and other
 material placed for my consideration.

 5.1. Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the

 society at the outset submitted that he is not
 assailing the merits of the amendment and,
 therefore, confined his arguments only to the
 propriety and legality of the judgment by which
 substantial amendment has been allowed by the
 courts below. He challenged the amendment on two
 grounds. Firstly, there was inordinate delay in
 filing the application for amendment and secondly,
 that under the guise of subsequent events the firm
 has attempted to fill in the lacunas in the
 original pleadings. He further submitted that
 order of Co-operative Courts allowing amendment is
 without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Co-operative
 Courts have no powers to entertain the application
 seeking amendment of the dispute.

 5.2. On the other hand Mr.Jahagirdar, learned
 senior counsel for the firm took me through the
 impugned judgment contending that respondent nos.10
 to 16 being beneficiaries of the agreement of 1963
 would be necessary party in the instant
 proceedings. In so far as the submission of
 Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the society,
 that amendment to the dispute under section 91 is

 impermissible is concerned, he contended that
 principles of the Civil Procedure Code (for short
 "CPC") would apply whenever the Co-operative Courts
 find that the Act and the Rules are totally silent.
 He further submitted that there is no express power
 conferred on the Co-operative Courts to allow the
 amendment of the dispute or written statement and,
 therefore, they can allow the party to amend the
 pleadings by applying the principles of CPC.

 5.3 Both the learned senior counsel appearing
 for the parties placed reliance on the judgments of
 this court and endeavoured to read them in support
 of their contentions. Heavy reliance was placed on
 the judgment of this court in Murlidhar Datoba
Nimanka and Others Vs. Harish Balkrushna Latane
and Others 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 196, Bharat
Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others Vs. R.K.Suvarna &
Others 1997(1) ALL MR 193. In addition, Mr.Sakhare
 also placed reliance upon the judgments of this
 court in P & T Central Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Nagpur and Others Vs. Judge, Co-operative Court,
Nagpur and Others 1987 Mh.L.J.232 and the judgment
 of the Apex Court in Rameshwar andOthers V. Jot

Ram and Others AIR 1976 SC 49. Mr.Sawant, learned
 counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9 adopted the

 submissions of Mr.Sakhare and in addition placed
 reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Sampath Kumar Vs.Ayyakannu and Anr. (2002) 7
Supreme Court Cases 559.

 6. Firstly, I would consider the question of
 law raised by the learned senior counsel appearing
 for the parties as to whether the Co-operative
 Courts have powers to allow the parties to the
 dispute filed under section 91 of the Act to amend
 the pleadings i.e. the dispute and the written
 statement by applying the principles of CPC. In
 other words, whether the parties to the dispute
 under section 91 could be allowed to amend the
 pleadings by applying the principles laid down by
 the Apex Court and High Courts while dealing with
 the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC since
 the Act and the Rules are totally silent in so far
 as the amendment to the pleadings is concerned.

 7. This court in Murlidhar Datoba (supra) has
 elaborately considered the scheme of the Act while
 dealing with the question as to whether the
 Co-operative Courts are governed by the provisions
 of the CPC and whether in the absence of provisions
 similar to the CPC either in the Act or in the

 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for
 short "the Rules") can the Co-operative courts
 exercise the powers of the Civil court specified
 under CPC. The aforestated issues arose for
 consideration before the learned Single Judge while
 dealing with the issue involved in the said case as
 to whether or not the provisions of Order 39 Rule
 11 of CPC are applicable to the Co-operative Court
 in view of various specific provisions contained in
 the Act and the Rules. This issue was addressed by
 the learned Single Judge and while doing so he
 considered the entire scheme of the Act and
 ultimately answered the issue in negative holding
 that the Co-operative Courts are not armed with
 powers under Order 39 Rule 17 of CPC and in view
 thereof the impugned order in the said case was
 quashed and set aside by which the defence was
 struck off by the Appellate Court.

 7.1. It is against this backdrop the learned
 Single Judge in paragraph 22 and 23 observed thus:

 "22. The Legislature in its
 wisdom has specifically avoided to apply
 the provisions of Civil Procedure Code to

 follow the rules of procedure followed by
 the Civil Courts under Civil Procedure Code
 in specified situations and not in each and
 every case. Besides, it is to be noted
 that the reference to the manner relating
 to the enforcement of attendance of
 witnesses and the production of evidence
 similar to one in case of Civil Court has
 been made subsequent to the specific
 provision regarding the requirement of
 hearing the dispute in the manner as
 prescribed under the said Act".

 "23. Undoubtedly, merely because

 the section restricts the applicability of
 such principles only in relation to the
 enforcement of attendance of witnesses and
 recording of evidence oral or documentary,
 it cannot be also said that the principles
 of Civil Procedure Code would not apply
 even in case where the said Act or the said
 Rules are totally silent. Nevertheless, it
 will be only in relation to the procedure
 to be followed and when absolutely
 necessary for the purpose of disposal of
 the dispute and in the interest of justice,

 some of the examples of applicability of
 principles of Civil Procedure Code to the
 proceedings before the Co-operative Courts
 can be in relation to power to frame and
 alter the issues in terms of Order XLV,
 amendment of award when any clerical or
 arithmetical mistakes or error arising
 therein from any accidental slip or
 omission is brought to its notice in terms
 of section 152 of Civil Procedure Code or
 following the procedure prescribed for the
 adjudication of main disputes, in case of
 miscellaneous proceedings therein in terms
 of section 141 of Civil Procedure Code.
 These are some of the some of instances in
 which general principles of Civil Procedure
 Code would be attracted and can be followed
 by the Co-operative Courts. However, it
 will not include the jurisdiction to
 exercise various powers specifically given
 to the Civil Court which otherwise are not
 normally available to any Tribunal or quasi
 judicial authorities. Inherent power which
 is available to the Civil Court under
 section 151 cannot be presumed to be
 available to the Co-operative Court in the

 absence of specific provision in that
 regard under the said Act. Similarly, the
 Co-operative Court is not entitled to
 exercise the powers of review under Civil
 Procedure Code in the absence of specific
 provision in that regard in the statute
 under which it is constituted. Being so,
 merely because section 114 and Order 47
 makes the provision for review power of the
 Civil Courts under the Civil Procedure

 Code, it cannot be said that the
 Co-operative Court would be entitled to
 exercise the same power in the absence of
 similar provision in that regard in the
 said Act and the Rules. It is settled law
 that the Courts which are constituted under
 special Statutes can function within the
 scope of the powers given to such Courts
 under the Act under which they are
 constituted and they cannot travel beyond
 such powers".

 7.2 It is, thus, clear that merely because the
 section restricts applicability of the principles
 of CPC only in relation to the enforcement of the
 attendance of the witnesses and recording of the

 evidence oral or documentary, it cannot be said
 that the principles of CPC would not apply even in
 case where the said Act or the said Rules are
 totally silent. However, it does not include the
 powers specifically given to the Civil Court which
 otherwise are normally not available to any
 tribunal or quasi-judicial authorities such as
 inherent power which is available to the Civil
 Court under section 151 cannot be presumed to be
 available to the Co-operative Court in the absence
 of specific provision in that regard under the said
 Act.

 7.3 In Bharat Co-operative Ltd. (supra) this

 court was dealing with almost similar situation
 when the following issues were considered: (a)
 Whether an amendment, which alters the terms of
 reference forming the basic dispute put forward
 before the Co-operative Court, can be permitted ?
 and (b) Whether the Maharashtra State Co-operative
 Appellate Court has power to entertain an appeal
 and order of the Trial Court allowing or rejecting
 an amendment ?, and while dealing with these issues
 in paragraph 10 the learned Single Judge observed
 thus:

 . "Section 91 of the Act envisages
 the raising of a dispute which is required

 to be settled in accordance with the
 procedure prescribed in Chapter IX of the
 Act. In a manner of speaking, the
 interference is the substratum of the
 dispute which is to be adjudicated by the

 Co-operative Court. Unless there is

 express power in the Co-operative Court to
 alter the terms of reference themselves, it

 must be held that any amendment which would

 touch the substratum of the dispute to be
 adjudicated under section 91 of the Act is
 impermissible. Section 94 of the Act
 indicates the procedure for settlement of
 disputes and power of the Co-operative

 Court. Some of the powers indicated in

 this section are comparable to the powers

 exercised by the Civil Court exercising

 jurisdiction under the Code of Civil
 Procedure. However, all powers exercisable

 by the Civil Court under the Code of

 Procedure are not vested in the

 Co-operative Court, since it is only a

 creature of statute and not a Court of

 plenary jurisdiction".

 7.4 It is, thus, clear that unless there is

 express power in the Co-operative Court to alter
 the terms of reference themselves, it must be held
 that any amendment which would touch the substratum
 of the dispute to be adjudicated under section 91
 of the Act is impermissible. In other words, the
 amendment which touches the substratum of the
 dispute or nature of the dispute is impermissible.

 7.5 This Court in P and T Central Co-operative

Society Ltd. (supra) has observed that there
 cannot be any doubt that a procedure provided in
 the CPC would apply to the proceedings before the
 Co-operative Court as far as it can be made
 applicable.

 7.6 The Apex Court in R.C.Tiwari Vs. M.P.State

Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others

(1997) 5 SCC 125 has clearly held that the
 principles of res judicata do apply to the
 Registrar under M.P.Co-operative Societies Act,
 1960. Similarly, this court in unreported judgment
 dated 9.1.1976 in M/s.Bharat Sales Service and

Another Vs. Shyam Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd. and Others in paragraph 4 thereof observed

 that the Co-operative Society can apply for
 transposition of the party to the dispute
 suggesting thereby that the principles of CPC are
 applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal.

 8. The provisions of the Act and the Rules are
 oblivious of amendment of the pleadings i.e.
 dispute and written statement. However, they do
 not specifically rule out or preclude Co-operative
 Courts from granting the amendment of the
 pleadings. Sub-section 3 of section 94 of the Act
 confers power on the court that if it is satisfied
 that a person whether he be a member of the society
 or not has acquired any interest in the property of
 a person who is a party to a dispute, it may order,
 that the person who has acquired the interest in
 the property may join as a party to the dispute;
 and any decision that may be passed on the
 reference by the Court shall be binding on the
 party so joined, in the same manner as if he was an
 original party to the dispute. Section 94,
 however, is silent about the powers of the Court to
 allow the parties to amend the pleadings.

 8.1 In Murlidhar Datoba’s case (supra) this
 court after considering all the provisions relating

 to the procedure to be followed by the Courts under

 the Act and the Rules observed "that they would
 lead to the conclusion that the same shall be
 necessarily as prescribed under the said Act and
 the said Rules, though in the specified
 circumstances it may be as far as possible in
 consonance with the procedure followed by the Civil
 Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure and in
 that connection, the principles of Code of Civil
 Procedure are to be borne in mind. Obviously, a
 specific provision in that regard was requried to
 be made since Legislature in the said section
 itself has stated that the procedure to be followed
 shall be as prescribed. Meaning thereby in the
 absence of specific provision regarding enforcement
 of attendance of witnesses and recording of
 evidence - oral or documentary being provided in
 the said Rules, the principles of Code of Civil
 Procedure in that regard will have to be applied.

 9. The position that emerges from the above
 discussion is that in the absence of a specific
 provision in the Act and the Rule regarding
 amendment of the pleadings the principles of CPC in
 that regard will have to be applied and the
 Co-opertive Courts should allow an amendment of the

 dispute under section 91 of the Act or the written
 statement if it is necessary for the purpose of
 determining the real question and controversies
 between the parties. Avoidance of multiplicity of
 the proceedings is also one of the relevant
 considerations. While allowing the amendment the
 Courts will have to bear in mind that it is not
 altering the terms of reference/dispute or it is
 not touching the substratum of the dispute to be
 adjudicated under section 91. The power of
 allowing or rejecting the amendment can be
 exercised at any stage of the proceedings,
 depending upon the facts in each matter, in
 accordance with the guidelines laid down by the

 High Courts and Supreme Court in the various

 judgments. It is true that the amendment cannot be
 claimed as a matter of right and in all
 circumstances. But it is equally true that the

 courts while deciding such prayers shall not adopt
 hypertechnical approach.

 9.1 The Apex court in Sampath Kumar’s case

 (supra) has made it clear that basic structure of

 the suit should not be altered by the proposed

 amendment. This court in Quality Polly Closures
Vs. Executive Engineers, M.S.E.B., Satara (supra)

 while dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule
 17 has observed that mere delay cannot be a ground
 to reject the amendment. The power to allow the
 amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage
 of the proceedings in the interest of justice.
 Courts while deciding application to amend should
 not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal
 approach should be the general rule particularly in
 cases where the other side can be compensated by
 awarding costs. Technicalities of law should not
 be permitted to hamper the courts in the
 administration of justice between the parties.
 Similarly, the apex court in Ragu Thilak D.John Vs.

S.Rayappan and Others (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases

472 has held that the dominant purpose of allowing
 the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The
 plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was
 barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of
 the case. The plea of limitation being disputed
 could be made a subject-matter of the issue after
 allowing the amendment prayed for. Similarly, the
 Apex Court in Sampath Kumar’s case (supra) has
 reiterated the principle of law that the court has
 powers to grant amendment of pleading at any stage
 of the proceedings in order to avoid multiplicity
 of suits. It is further held that the merits of

 the averments sought to be incorporated by way of

 amendment are not to be judged at the stage of
 allowing prayer for amendment. The Courts,
 therefore, while allowing the amendment to the
 pleadings in the dispute under section 91, shall
 apply the principles enunciated by the High Courts
 and Apex Court, while applying the principles of
 CPC for allowing the parties to amend the
 pleadings.

 9.2 At this stage I would like to make
 reference to the notification issued by the High
 Court on 11.12.2003. I am conscious of the fact

 that the said notification would not apply to the
 present case. However, it would certainly benefit
 the Co-operative Courts while dealing with the
 dispute under section 91 of the Act. The
 notification has been issued by the High Court in
 exercise of the powers under Article 227 and 235 of
 the Constitution of India by virtue of which, the
 provisions of Civil Manual, mutatis mutandis, is
 made applicable to the Maharashtra State

 Co-operative Courts. Chapter V of the Civil Manual
 deals with the pleadings. Rule 79 of Chapter V of

 the Civil Manual speaks of the amendment of the
 pleadings under Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC.

 Therefore, since this court specifically has made
 the Civil Manual applicable to the Co-operative
 Courts including Rule 79 under Chapter V therein
 which deals with the pleadings, amendments to the
 plaint are permitted by the Co-operative Court.

 10. I will now like to examine the submissions
 of Mr.Sakhare, learned counsel for the society. He
 invited my attention to the application dated
 10.2.1986 and contended that under the guise of
 subsequent events the firm has attempted to fill in
 the lacunas in the dispute that was filed in 1974.
 I perused the application and in particular
 paragraph 3 thereof. Paragraph 3 of the
 application reads thus :

 "3. I say that the aforesaid dispute
 was filed as far back as October 1973.
 Subsequently, certain events have taken
 place. It has become necessary and
 expedient to amend the dispute with a view
 to bring all the facts on record to decide
 all the issues involved in the dispute
 effectively and completely. I say no
 prejudice will be caused to the opponents

 if such an amendment is made".

 11. Mr.Sakhare submits that in the schedule of
 amendments not a single event is being incorporated
 which could be termed as subsequent event.
 Moreover, there was a long delay in making the
 application seeking amendment in the dispute. I
 have carefully considered the submissions of
 Mr.Sakhare and perused the schedule of amendments
 and a copy of the dispute. It is clear from the
 schedule of amendments that why it becomes
 necessary and expedient to amend the dispute. The
 society was not taken by surprise. The courts
 below applied their mind to the schedule
 considering every paragraph of the amendment
 carefully and allowed it partly. Considering the
 nature of the amendments it cannot be said that the

 firm has attempted to fill in the lacunas in the
 original pleadings. Both the courts below have
 concurrently held that the amendments which are
 allowed would not change the nature of the dispute
 and are necessary to settle the dispute finally
 between the parties. Mr.Sakhare invited my
 attention to paragraph 9(f) and prayer clause
 (b)(vii) of the schedule of amendments contended
 that such prayer cannot be made as it is hopelessly

 time barred. As observed earlier, the court while
 deciding the application seeking amendment are not
 expected to adopt hypertechnical approach. In
Sampath Kumar’s case (supra) it is clearly held
 that an amendment once incorporated relates back to
 the date of the suit and in appropriate cases the
 court is competent while permitting an amendment to
 direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not
 relate back to the date of the suit and to the
 extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been
 brought before the court on the date on which the
 application seeking the amendment was made.
 Keeping this is view the amendment sought in
 paragraph 9(f) and prayer clause b(vii) in
 particular of the Schedule of amendments will be
 subject to limitation or deemed to have been
 brought before the Court on the date on which the
 application seeking amendment was made. Similarly,
 it may be noticed that though the dispute was filed
 in 1973 it moved with pace of snail and further the
 firm, which filed the instant dispute, obtained
 stay to further proceedings in the petition which
 cannot be termed as causing deliberate delay in the
 progress of the case. The amendment of the
 pleadings can be allowed at any stge of the
 proceedings as long as it is not prejudical to the

 rights of other side and it does not change the
 nature or touch the substratum of the dispute. In
 result Writ Petition No.1915 of 1987 is dismissed.

 12. In so far as the firm’s Writ Petition
 bearing No.1585 of 1987 against the orders
 rejecting the amendment sought as per paragraphs
 9(b) and (c) of the schedule of amendments is
 concerned, I find absolutely no reason to interfere
 with the orders of the Courts below. After having
 heard Mr.Jahagirdhar, learned senior counsel for
 the petitioners and having perused paragraphs (b)
 and 9(c) of the schedule of amendments I am
 satisfied that by not allowing those amendments no
 prejudice whatsoever is caused to the firm. The
 Courts below have considered the amendments sought
 in the aforestated paragraph in proper perspective
 and have rightly rejected observing that the
 interest of respondent nos.10 to 16 has already
 been taken care of and protected by the firm in its
 pleadings. Moreover, those respondents have not
 come forward seeking to join them as party to the
 dispute. It was further held that if the firm
 succeeds in the instant dispute it can take care of
 the interest of respondent nos.10 to 16 and,

 therefore, their presence in the instant
 proceedings is not necessary. In so far the
 averments sought to be introduced as per paragraph
 9(b) of the schedule of the amendment, regarding
 signing of the written statement is concerned, in
 my opinion, the contentions raised therein can be
 advanced at the time of final arguments. The
 observations in paragraph 2 made by the Appellate
 Court while affirming the findings recorded by the
 court below clearly demonstrates that the amendment
 sought as per paragraph 9(b) and 9(c) of the
 schedule of the amendments was rightly rejected and
 it would not cause any prejudice whatsoever either
 to the firm or to respondent nos.10 to 16. Keeping
 that in view I find no reason to interfere in the

 impugned orders passed by the courts below
 rejecting the amendment sought in paragraph 9(b)
 and 9(c) and consequential amendments sought in
 other paragraphs concerning respondent nos.10 to 16
 in Writ Petition No.1585 of 1987. In the
 circumstances, this petition also stands dismissed.

 13. Considering that dispute bearing
 No.ABN/CC-II/1870 of 1973 is pending since 1973 the
 Co-operative Court is directed to dispose of the

 same as expeditiously as possible and preferrably
 within period of one year from today. The parties
 are directed to co-operate an early disposal of the
 dispute.

(D.B.Bhosale, J.)

 HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

 WRIT PETITION NO.1915 OF 1987
 ALONGWITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 1987

 Date of Decision: 8th September, 2004

 For approval and signature:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice : D. B. BHOSALE

 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
 be allowed to see the judgement ?

 2. To be referred to the Reporter or
 not?

 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see
 the fair copy of the judgement?

 4. Whether this case involves a
 substantial question of law as to the
 interpretation of the Constitution of
 India, 1950, or any Order made
 thereunder?

 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the
 Civil Judges?

 6. Whether the case involves an
 important question of law and whether a
 copy of the judgment should be sent to
 Nagpur Office?