( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging order dated 25. 04. 2007 made by Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Tribunal) in Revision Application No. 89 of 2005. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT Co-operative Society allotted four plots bearing Plot Nos. 77 to 80 to the petitioner, who is a member of the respondent-Society. The petitioner undertook construction of bore-well on the said land for the purposes of industry run by the petitioner. The respondent-Society filed Lavad Suit No. 3158 of 2003 before the Board of Nominees seeking permanent injunction against such construction of bore-well. However, as no interim stay was granted, the petitioner completed the construction of bore-well. ( 3 ) THE respondent-Society, therefore, sought amendment in the plaint by moving an application for amendment Exh. 24 whereunder various prayers were made for amending the plaint. The amendment application came to be granted by the Board of Nominees vide order dated 28. 02. 2005 made on application Exh. 24. The petitioner carried the matter in Revision Application before the Tribunal, who has, for the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 25. 04. 2007, confirmed the order made by the Board of Nominees while rejecting the Revision Application. ( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has assailed the orders of the Tribunal as well as Board of Nominees principally on the ground that the amendment as prayed for ought not to have been granted as the amendment changes the nature of the plaint as well as gives rise to a fresh cause of action which is not relatable to the cause of action and the relief prayed in the main plaint. It was submitted that the Board of Nominees had no jurisdiction to determine the aspect : whether the petitioner was using the water from the constructed bore-well and discharging untreated effluent resulting in pollution. ( 5 ) ON going through the impugned order made by the Tribunal it has been found that the question regarding shortage of water available for industrial use, the user thereof, disposal of such used water without treatment of the effluent, etc. are issues which are relatable to the issue of administrative expenses of the society, in context of the resolution of the society and hence, all these issues being required to be decided after leading of evidence, the amendment appears to have been rightly granted according to the Tribunal. are issues which are relatable to the issue of administrative expenses of the society, in context of the resolution of the society and hence, all these issues being required to be decided after leading of evidence, the amendment appears to have been rightly granted according to the Tribunal. It has further been found that the amendment had been brought before the Board of Nominees before issues have been framed. ( 6 ) IN light of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal while confirming the order of Board of Nominees it becomes apparent that there is no issue of law which would require consideration in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The stage at which the amendment has been granted by Board of Nominees is a stage at which such an exercise is permissible in law and hence, no interference is warranted. The contention : whether Board of Nominees has jurisdiction to try the issue or not : is a premature contention in absence of the relevant issues having been framed at the point of time when the amendment came to be granted by Board of Nominees. ( 7 ) HENCE, the petition does not merit acceptance and is accordingly summarily rejected.