JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 26-6-2003, whereby the Co-operative Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 30-11-2000 of the Co-operative Court, Mumbai and thereby the Co-operative Court has been directed to hear the respondent No. 4 herein along with the other respondents and to decide the matter afresh. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the respondent is neither the member nor the past member of the society in question and therefore the question of hearing the respondent by the Co-operative Court does not arise, more particularly in view of the provisions contained in section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On perusal of the impugned order itself it is apparent that the Co-operative Court was misled in assuming that the respondent is the assignee of the rights of the original member of the society and that therefore needs to be heard in the proceedings by the Co-operative Court. The records, however, apparently disclose that the respondent had contended to have acquired the right to the flat from Smt. Jyoto Vora, who was not a member of the petitioner society, but who was the member of Munisuvrat Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Considering the nature of the dispute raised before the Co-operative Court, neither the said Munisuvrat Darshan Co-operative Housing Society nor Smt. Jyoto Vora was interested in any manner in the said dispute, nor either of them were the members of the petitioner-society at any time and that therefore there was no question of allowing the respondent to be heard in the matter in relation to the dispute between the petitioners and M/s. Gandhi Sons, a partnership firm, or its partners Gulabrao Gavande or Smt. Beena Bipinbhai Gandhi. Being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and needs to be set aside as the Co-operative Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any grievance at the instance of the respondent Bakul alias Bankim Padamshi Dharamshi. Any objection to the execution of the Award passed in such proceedings by the Co-operative Court can be challenged by a stranger in terms of the provisions of the Rule 107(19) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Any objection to the execution of the Award passed in such proceedings by the Co-operative Court can be challenged by a stranger in terms of the provisions of the Rule 107(19) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the said objections are limited to the execution of the Award and the authority is not empowered to go beyond the Award. Certainly in that case a regular civil remedy is not barred. 3. Faced with the situation as stated above, the learned Advocate for the respondent has fairly submitted that the respondent would in that case approach the Civil Court, and for that purpose the statement of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners would not execute the award dated 30-11-2000 for a period of four weeks be accepted. In the circumstances, while accepting the said statement the impugned order dated 26-6-2003 is set aside. Needless to say that the Award would not be executed for a period of four weeks and within the said period the respondent is at liberty to approach the Civil Court. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the case as well as the various contentions which are sought to be raised in the matter, and they are kept open. The Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----