JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2.Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of parties. 3.This petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Marine Times Publications Pvt. Ltd. v. Shriram Transport and Finance Co. Ltd. another)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 626, wherein it has been held that; "Where an agreement was entered into for transfer of premises in a building owned by a co-operative society, between a member of the Co-operative Society, and a non-member and a suit was filed by the non-member, in which the main claim was made for a decree of specific performance of the said agreement and the prayer for an order that society should be directed to give their approval to the said transaction was merely an ancillary prayer made with a view to complete the relief of specific performance, such a dispute cannot be said to fall within the scope of section 91(1)(b) and consequently the suit would not be maintainable in a Co-operative Court. As far as the claim to have agreement specifically performed was concerned, it cannot be said to be a claim made by a person (non-member) against the society. Moreover, the claim of non-member against the society, as made in the plaint, cannot be said to be made through a member, because it was only when a decree for performance of the said agreement was passed against the member, that it could be said that the other relief, namely, for an order directing co-operative society to approve the said transaction was claimed against the society through a member. Moreover, that relief was only in the nature of ancillary relief, subsidiary to the main relief of specific performance". 4.In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 25-7-2002 passed by the Maharashtra Co-operative Court in Appeal No. 32/2001 which arising out of the order passed by the Co-operative Court in Dispute No. 300/95 filed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is member of respondent No. 1 society and the respondent No. 1 allotted the plot in dispute to the respondent No. 2 which the respondent No. 2 is said to have agreed to sell the said plot to the petitioner vide agreement dated 25-10-1991. The respondent No. 2 is member of respondent No. 1 society and the respondent No. 1 allotted the plot in dispute to the respondent No. 2 which the respondent No. 2 is said to have agreed to sell the said plot to the petitioner vide agreement dated 25-10-1991. As per the agreed terms, the payment was to be made to respondent No. 2 by the petitioner and the former had refused to take steps to transfer the plot in dispute in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, he had filed the dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Court, by order dated 1-2-2001 dismissing the dispute on the ground that the dispute is not maintainable since the petitioner is not a member of the respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society. 5.Since the petitioner is not a member of the respondent No. 1 Society, it is obvious that the dispute which is filed by the petitioner before the Co-operative Court, cannot attract the provisions of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Act, 1960 and I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court who confirmed the finding of the Co-operative Court dismissing the dispute. 6.Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. -----