Bombay High Court
NIRMAL TOWNSHIP A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusM/S. B. K. JHALA AND ASSOCIATES THR. ITS PARTNER KAMLESH BAHADURSINH JHALA AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the application and that no jurisdictional error existed, thereby dismissing the revision.
Summary
The Nirmal Township A Co-operative Housing Society filed a civil revision challenging two orders dated 14 May 2026 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Pune. The first order rejected its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the suit concerning a deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act required prior notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The second order directed the parties to maintain status quo, effectively a temporary injunction. The High Court held that the plaintiff, being the promoter, was entitled to sue and that the trial court correctly applied the law, citing the Supreme Court decision in Arunkumar H. Shah HUF v. Avon Arcade Premises Co‑operative Society Ltd. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, with liberty to appeal the status‑quo order before the appropriate court.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is jurisdictionally erroneous in view of the notice requirement under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.
- Whether a civil revision is maintainable against the order directing status quo (temporary injunction).
Legislation cited
Subjects
- revision
- civil procedure
- Order VII Rule 11
- status quo
- temporary injunction
- deemed conveyance
- co-operative society
- jurisdiction
- notice requirement
- Maharashtra law
Judgment
13.CRA.442.2026.doc
ANANT
KRISHNA
NAIK
Digitally signed
by ANANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KRISHNA NAIK
Date:
2026.09.05
16:45:08 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2026
Nirmal Township A Co-operative Housing Society ...Applicant
Versus
M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates
Thr. Its Partner Kamlesh Bahadursinh Jhala & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Shrikant Patil, Rohan Bhandave, Anish Kikle, Akshada
Nagrale for the Applicant.
Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 14 th May, 2026 passed
by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune rejecting an application
preferred by the Applicant Defendant-Society under the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and another order dated 14 th May,
2026 passed by the Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in
respect of the suit premises.
3. So far as the second order dated 14 th May, 2026, the Applicant has an
efficacious remedy of preferring an Appeal before the District Court as the said
AKN 1
13.CRA.442.2026.doc
order was passed on an application for a temporary injunction. Even
otherwise, a revision is not maintainable against an order granting status quo.
4. In regard to the first order rejecting application for rejection of the
plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure
1908, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that since the
challenge is to an order granting deemed conveyance under the provisions of
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion
of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963, the subject matter
of the Suit touches the business of the society and therefore without prior
notice envisaged under the provisions of Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, the suit could not have been instituted.
5. The Court finds that the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1-promoter was the
party-Respondent in the proceedings under section 11 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Society Act, 1960. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that any
person aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority granting
deemed conveyance is entitled to institute a suit before the Civil Court. A
useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Arunkumar H. Shah HUF vs Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative
Society Limited and Ors1. The learned Civil Judge has thus taken a correct
view of the matter. There is neither jurisdictional error nor material
1 2025 SCC online SC 828
AKN 2
13.CRA.442.2026.doc
irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court so as to warrant
exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
6. The Civil Revision Application thus stand dismissed with liberty to the
Applicant to assail the order dated 14 th May, 2026 passed by the trial Court
directing the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the said property
before the appropriate Court.
( N. J. JAMADAR, J. )
AKN 3
Checking your session…