( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed praying for following reliefs: to allow this petition and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or oder in the nature of writ, quashing and setting aside the judgments and orders of Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No. 282 of 2006 on 05-01-2007, whereby the orders [exh. 46 and 49 of in Lavad Suit No. 827/06] of the Board of Nominees Court, Ahmedabad Division, Ahmedabad, are quashed and set aside and a conditional order has been passed to the effect that subject to the condition of the petitioner deposing 1/3rd of Rs. 22,96,580/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, leave to defend the said Lavad Suit is granted and that the lock applied to the premises [29, Vallabhkunj Society, Near Mahaprabhji s Bethak, Naroda, Ahmedabad] be opened, as also the order, passed on 10-05-2007 below Review Application No. 2 of 2007 in Revision Application No. 282 of 2006; to grant interim relief by way of stay of the execution, implementation and enforcement of the judgment and order of Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Revision Application No. 282 of 2006 on 05-01-2007, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition; and to grant such further and other reliefs, as may be deemed to be just and proper. ( 2 ) THE orders of the Tribunal dated 05. 01. 2007 in revision application and dated 10. 05. 2007 in review application which are under challenge came to be made in backdrop of the following facts. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-Bank instituted Lavad Suit No. 337 of 2005 against one Shital Products for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,96,580/- with interest as the said principal borrower failed to meet with its obligations. In that suit the petitioner herein was impleaded as one of the guarantors. The suit had been instituted on 02. 04. 2005 and notice came to be issued by the Board of Nominees on 06. 04. 2005, including notice for attachment before judgment. On 17. 06. 2005 the petitioner appeared and prayed for adjournment for engaging an advocate. It appears that thereafter no steps were taken by the petitioner to contest the suit and ultimately on 16. 09. 2005 judgment and award were made by the Board of Nominees decreeing the suit. 04. 2005, including notice for attachment before judgment. On 17. 06. 2005 the petitioner appeared and prayed for adjournment for engaging an advocate. It appears that thereafter no steps were taken by the petitioner to contest the suit and ultimately on 16. 09. 2005 judgment and award were made by the Board of Nominees decreeing the suit. It is the say of respondent No. 1-Bank (disputed by the petitioner) that execution proceedings were initiated on 26. 09. 2005 and pursuant thereto vide panchnama dated 30. 06. 2006 the property of the petitioner was attached. ( 4 ) ON 10. 07. 2006 the petitioner moved a restoration application praying for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and award of the Board of Nominees. During pendency of the restoration application, 2 applications - Exhs. 46 and 49 came to be preferred by the petitioner. Application Exh. 46 was for appointment of a Commissioner to remove the lock applied to the property and lift the attachment while application Exh. 49 prayed for granting unconditional leave to defend. In the meantime, on 18. 08. 2006 the restoration application came to be granted by Board of Nominees. On 26. 09. 2006 the Board of Nominees passed a common order below applications Exhs. 46 and 49. The Board of Nominees granted both the applications moved by the petitioner. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-Bank, therefore, preferred Revision Application No. 282 of 2006 challenging the order dated 27. 09. 2006 allowing applications Exhs. 46 and 49. The Tribunal has allowed the Revision Application after quashing the order dated 27. 09. 2006. Further a condition has been imposed on the petitioner to deposit 33% of the principal amount of Rs. 22,96,580/- within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of order, and upon such deposit the bank has been directed to remove the lock, with a further condition that only after the amount is paid would the Board of Nominees permit the petitioner the leave to defend and proceed to hear and dispose of the suit at the earliest. The petitioner has also been directed by the Tribunal to maintain status quo qua the property till the disposal of the case. The petitioner sought review of this order dated 05. 01. 2007. However, review application was rejected by an order dated 10. 05. 2007. The petitioner has also been directed by the Tribunal to maintain status quo qua the property till the disposal of the case. The petitioner sought review of this order dated 05. 01. 2007. However, review application was rejected by an order dated 10. 05. 2007. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal principally on the ground that the petitioner was in no way connected with the loan transaction and the petitioner has wrongly been treated as a guarantor by misusing signatures of the petitioner obtained on a blank paper when the petitioner himself had availed of loan from the respondent-Bank. It is further stated that there is discrepancy in the dates on which the loan was disbursed and the loan documents executed by the principal borrower. That the respondent-Bank has wrongly attached the property of the petitioner in absence of any legal order in favour of the respondent-Bank, and even if attachment was permissible no lock or seal could have been applied by the respondent-Bank. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 159 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (the Act ). In nutshell the submission was that the petitioner had raised bona fide triable issues which entitles the petitioner to unconditional leave to defend the suit and the Tribunal was in error in passing a conditional order. In support of the submissions made reliance has been placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. M/s. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd. , AIR 2002 SC 1993 , with special reference to Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment. The learned advocate also read from Paragraph Nos. 8 and 13 of the judgment to emphasise the submissions made. ( 7 ) THE learned senior advocate for the respondent-Bank submitted that no interference was warranted in the order made by the Tribunal as nothing had been shown to establish that the discretion had not been property exercised by the Tribunal while imposing the conditions for being granted leave to defend. It was further submitted that there was no dispute that the petitioner had been served with summons of the proceedings in the suit, the petitioner had appeared on 17. 06. It was further submitted that there was no dispute that the petitioner had been served with summons of the proceedings in the suit, the petitioner had appeared on 17. 06. 2005 and sought adjournment for engaging an advocate, but then did not take any steps to seek leave to defend or contest the suit. In the circumstances, it was submitted, that the order made by the Tribunal was justified. Submissions were also made in relation to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as to the discrepancy in dates of sanction and disbursement of loan to contend that in fact there was no discrepancy. Lastly, it was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner should also be taken into consideration. For this purpose it was submitted that the petitioner had broken open the lock on 14. 05. 2007 applied to the property and police complaint in this regard has also been filed by the respondent-Bank. That this act had been committed by the petitioner before the present petition was moved on 01. 06. 2007 and despite that the said facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN rejoinder, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in light of provisions of Section 159 of the Act, in absence of any legal authority to apply lock / seal, the petitioner could not be prevented from entering the property owned by the petitioner. ( 9 ) THERE can be no dispute as to the legal propositions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner. However, each case would turn on its own facts and there cannot be any carte blanche in all situations. At the cost of repetition it requires to be reiterated that in the present case the petitioner had been granted an opportunity by issuance of summons which was not availed of by the petitioner after having sought adjournment for the purpose of engaging an advocate. In the circumstances, when the petitioner seeks to have a judgment and award set aside on the ground that the same are ex-parte vis-a-vis the petitioner, if the Tribunal imposes conditions while granting leave to defend and in the process modifies the order made by the Board of Nominees, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error in the facts of the case by imposing conditions. All the issues, namely, whether the petitioner is a guarantor or not etc. are issues where evidence is required to be led. It is not a triable issue on demurer. In the circumstances, if the Tribunal has found that no prima facie finding can be recorded qua the so-called triable issues and the petitioner must be put to condition for availing of leave to defend the Tribunal s order cannot be faulted with. ( 10 ) IN exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, it is not possible to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in absence of any error in law which is apparent. The position is well established that merely because a different view is possible in the same set of facts and circumstances of the case that by itself is not sufficient to intervene in the order of the Tribunal. Nor can the order of the Tribunal be said to suffer from vice of perversity. Neither appreciation of evidence is permissible. Hence, the petition does not merit acceptance and is rejected. NOTICE discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. ( 11 ) AT this stage the learned advocate for the petitioner prays for extension of time to comply with the order of the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal had made the impugned order on 05. 01. 2007 and the order in Review Application on 10. 05. 2007, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has been enjoying the interim protection since 01. 06. 2007, the petitioner is permitted to comply with the order of the Tribunal within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. This extension is permitted subject to the condition that the petitioner restores status-quo ante and hands over possession of the property to the respondent-Bank within a period of 02 (two) days from today. The learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to inform the petitioner about this order without waiting for certified copy. ( 12 ) AT this stage the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks stay of operation of this order. Considering the facts of the case the request is rejected.