JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. All the three captioned petitions are cognate and interlinked. Therefore they were placed and heard together and are being decided simultaneously as per the present order. 1. The petitions and the prayers therein arise from the proceedings of Lavad Case No. 465 of 2012 instituted by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2079 of 2013 before the Court of Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, seeking relief of permanent injunction, etc. against the defendant society. 2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. J.C. Vyas for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2079 of 2013 and the respondent of other two petitions and learned senior counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for the respondent Nidhi (Thaltej) Cooperative Housing Society Limited-the petitioner of the other two petitions at length. 3. What is prayed in the first captioned Special Civil Application No. 2079 of 2013 is for issuance of direction to the Board of Nominees not to insist for concluding the hearing of all the applications for interlocutory orders at Exhibit 6 as well as other applications in the lavad case, unless and until the respondent society produces entire record before the Court in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in order dated 09th January, 2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2013. The other principal payer inserted by way of amendment, to direct the Board of Nominee not to proceed further in the Lavad Suit until the aforementioned order dated 09th January, 2013 in Special Civil Application for production of available record is complied with. 3.1 Special Civil Application No. 12258 of 2015 is filed on 31st July, 2015 by the Cooperative Society-the original defendant in which a writ of prohibition is prayed seeking direction to dismiss Lavad Suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground that the same was not maintainable under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. 3.1.1 The third Special Civil Application No. 2956 of 2016 instituted on 22nd February, 2016 is also by the society wherein it has prayed to set aside order dated 18th February, 2016 passed below Exhibit 69 in Lavad Suit No. 465 of 2012 in question and further to grant prayer as per Exhibit 69 which was not granted by the Board of Nominee. 3.2 Adverting to the facts leading to the aforesaid proceedings and filing of the present petitions, the petitioner of first petition-the original plaintiff filed Lavad Suit No. 465 of 2012 on 10th February, 2012 praying for a direction against the cooperative housing society to restrain it from transferring, assigning, etc., the property in question and creating any third party right by executing any writing, further to restrain the society from carrying out the construction and registering members as well as for other relief. Exhibit 6 application was filed for seeking prayers in the nature of interim injunction. On 11th December, 2012 the Board of Nominee passed order granting status quo, further directing the defendant society to produce copies of record and also appointing one Shri M.B. Shah as Court Commissioner. 3.3 Against the said order, the society preferred Revision Application No. 173 of 2012 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal. The Revision was rejected on 07th January, 2013. Against the order of the Tribunal, the society filed Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2013 before this Court. 3.4 The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 09th January, 2013 which order is reproduced hereunder. "1. Heard learned advocate for the parties. 2. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of the statement made and produced at page-122 and 123 in the petition, there cannot be any objection on the part of the concern i.e. petitioner, in producing the available record. What is being objected to is appointment of outsider as a Commissioner for taking records and attaining the record when the petitioner is voluntarily willing and ready to produce the record. Then let there be no outside agency like Commissioner for production of the record. 3. Under the instructions, Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the available record will be produced on or before 11th January, 2013 and this matter be disposed of accordingly. 4. Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the Caveator submitted that there cannot be any objection to such a proposition. However, liberty be reserved to all, as the interim arrangement may not yield the desired result as could be seen from the history. 5. In view of this consensus between the counsels for the parties, this petition is disposed of with following directions. However, liberty be reserved to all, as the interim arrangement may not yield the desired result as could be seen from the history. 5. In view of this consensus between the counsels for the parties, this petition is disposed of with following directions. (i) The petitioner to produce available record as agreed by the counsel before the Learned Board of Nominees, in Lavad Case No. 465 of 2012 with a copy to other side on or before 11th January, 2013 and in light of this, the impugned order qua production only, is suspended and it is clarify that the status-quo order is not even challenged and therefore, that shall enure. (ii) The parties are at liberty to approach the Court in case of difficulty, as the order of production of documents is only suspended on account of consensus expressed and recorded above. 6. The petition stand disposed of. No order as to costs." 3.5 It appears that a Purshish was filed by the defendant society on 11th January, 2013. The copy thereof figures at Annexure-E in the compilation of the first petition, the contents of which are extracted hereinbelow. "PURSHISH OF THE DEFENDANT The defendant above named most respectfully states as under: 1. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for injunction, in which prohibitory injunction was prayed for and a direction was sought against the defendant to produce the record of the society, which was granted by an order dated 11-12-12. Feeling aggrieved by it, the defendant had filed Revision before the Honorable Co-op Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The Honorable Co-op Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said Revision Application against which a Writ petition was filed before the Honorable High Court of Gujarat. 2. The Honorable High Court of Gujarat was pleased to Dispose of the petition, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 08.01.2013. Copy of the Order is produced on record with separate list. 3. The defendant hereby declares before this Honorable Court that the defendant is having complete record of the society i.e. Minutes of the meeting - General Meeting, Minutes of the meeting - Committee Meeting, Ledger and the copy of the Audit report, for the period from 2008 to 2011, which the defendant is producing before this Honorable Nominee with separate list. 4. 4. The defendant further declares that in next about 15 days defendant will produce all relevant papers insofar as the documents from the year 2011-2012 is concerned. 5. The defendant also declares that the defendant will produce the documents for the period prior to 2008 preferably within 4 months. To declare, the above mentioned facts before this Honorable Nominee, present purshis is filed by the Secretary, who is authorised by the defendant Society." 3.6 The dispute recurred at this stage when the defendant society produced record for the year 2011-12 on 08th February, 2013. At the same time the defendant society filed an application on 08th February, 2013 seeking prayer to dismiss the suit as not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid land contribution of the society and only paid the entry fee and share contribution, therefore the suit was premature. On 11th February, 2013, another application was filed by the society for vacating order of status quo. 3.7 The plaintiff filed application (Exh. 36) on 18th February, 2013 by which the production of documents was prayed for. It is the say of the society that without waiting for adjudication of said application (Exh. 36), the plaintiff hurried up to file Special Civil Application No. 2079 of 2013. It may be stated in Exhibit 36 application the plaintiff prayed for directing to produce entire record by the society as per order dated 09th January, 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2013, alternatively to get the record produced by appointing a Court Commissioner. It was further prayed that since the society did not produce the record within the time upto 11th January, 2013, a proceeding for contempt of court was liable to be initiated. 4. An order dated 06th August, 2015 came to be passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2079 of 2013 and directed to hear and decide application at Exh. 36. The portion of the order comprised in paragraphs 72 to 76 is reproduced hereinbelow. "72. In view of such facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it would not be just and proper at this stage that all applications, more particularly the application with request to dismiss the suit and Exh. 36. The portion of the order comprised in paragraphs 72 to 76 is reproduced hereinbelow. "72. In view of such facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it would not be just and proper at this stage that all applications, more particularly the application with request to dismiss the suit and Exh. 6 application are decided before the application submitted by the plaintiffs for production of documents is heard and decided, in respect of which the order dated 11.12.2012 is already passed, and the respondents have never challenged the said order. Therefore, at this stage, following order is passed. 73. The Board of Nominees will take up the application dated 18.12.2013 submitted by the plaintiff petitioner and pass appropriate order in respect of the said application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the presentation of the certified copy of this order either by the petitioner or by the respondents. 74. So as to enable the Board of Nominees to hear and decide the said application dated 18.12.2013, the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by this Court which is still in operation, is modified to the extent that it will be open to the Tribunal to consider and decide the said application dated 18.12.2013. 75. For other purposes, the said order will enure. 76. After the Board of Nominees passes appropriate order in accordance with the law and after hearing the parties with reference to the application dated 18.12.2013, this Court will be informed about such order and then appropriate order in present petition will be passed." 4.1 It is stated that in the times after passing of the aforesaid order, the adjudicating officer in the Board of Nominee was not available and the post was vacant, because of which hearing of application at Exhibit 36 could not take place. On 18th February, 2016 advocate of the society filed application at Exhibit 69 praying to grant time to file reply to Exhibit 36 application. The Board of Nominee passed order dated 18th February, 2016 closing the right of the society to file reply to Exhibit 36 application but granted liberty to submit defence by way of written arguments against Exhibit 36 prayer. The Board of Nominee passed order dated 18th February, 2016 closing the right of the society to file reply to Exhibit 36 application but granted liberty to submit defence by way of written arguments against Exhibit 36 prayer. It appears that on the very day, that is on 18th February, 2016, the society filed another application at Exhibit 70 stating about Special Civil Application No. 12258 of 2015 and further alleging that the other side was prolonging the proceedings. The Board of Nominee passed order dated 18th February, 2016 as above and also noted about the filing of Special Civil Application No. 12258 of 2015 by the society which prayed that the suit was not maintainable. In the last Special Civil Application No. 2956 of 2016, the order below Exhibit 69 dated 18th February, 2016 is brought under challenge. 5. Upon taking into account the total facts of the case, noticing the orders passed and events took place in the proceedings as well as on considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties by the respective learned counsels, it appears that the two aspects stand in forefront in the entire controversy. The first is the question of maintainability of suit. The defendant society has been contending that the suit is premature and hence not maintainable under Section 96 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The second facet is about the production of documents. In this regard, as noticed above, it appears that the society had made a statement about production of documents. It further appears that certain documents for the year 2011-12 were proposed to be produced but dispute remained about production of documents prior to the year 2008. 5.1 It is born out from the record that application at Exhibit 36 is filed by the plaintiff for very purpose seeking enforcement of production of documents by the defendant society. The society wanted to file reply to the said application which right was denied by the Board of Nominees as per order below Exhibit 69 application, brought under challenge in Special Civil Application No. 2956 of 2016. It may be true that prayer seeking to file reply by the society was made late, however on the ground of belatedness only, it would not be just and proper to deny the society to exercise its right to contest the prayer for production of documents and to file reply to such prayer. It may be true that prayer seeking to file reply by the society was made late, however on the ground of belatedness only, it would not be just and proper to deny the society to exercise its right to contest the prayer for production of documents and to file reply to such prayer. 5.2 It may be true that the society had made a statement about production of documents but the non-production or part production of the documents may have their effect on the merit consideration, but that should not lead to closure of right of the society to contest on various grounds. 5.3 It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the society that there was no deliberateness in not producing the documents and that all the documents which may be available and traceable would be produced. Again the non-production aspect may not influence the plea of the society on the maintainability of the suit. In a given case if the documents asked for are not produced or produced in part, necessary inference from the facts including the adverse inference may be drawn by the court or the forum concerned. Whether any such inference would occur in the facts of the present case is for the Board of Nominee to deicide. This Court has not gone into the said aspect, nor it is necessary to go into it at this stage. However the same cannot be a preemptive consideration to stall the total proceedings. Nor it is possible to conceive or perceive at this stage as to what would be the effect of the documents produced or not produced on the various facets of controversy. 5.4 At this stage order dated 09th January, 2013 quoted in paragraph 3.4 above passed in Special Civil Application No. 153 of 2013 may be recollected, as recorded therein the statement made by learned advocate for the society was that the society would have no objection in producing the available records. If the actual directions are seen, the Court observed that "the petitioner to produce available record", therefore the society had agreed to produce the record which was available with it. Producing of this record should not pose any difficulty. If the actual directions are seen, the Court observed that "the petitioner to produce available record", therefore the society had agreed to produce the record which was available with it. Producing of this record should not pose any difficulty. Whether non-production of other record asked for by the plaintiff would entail the consequence of contempt or would lead to adverse inference is a matter to be considered and decided by the Board of Nominees after considering the case of both the sides. For this, opportunity deserves to be granted to the society to putforth his case against the prayers in application Exh. 36. The arbiter wores are however that non-production of record or part of the record by the society cannot detain the consideration and hearing of various applications interlocutory or otherwise filed in the Lavad Suit. The suit and the related proceedings of the applications have to proceed without any prolongation. The Board of Nominee shall have to decide on the basis of available material on record including on the aspect of maintainability of the suit. 6. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, following directions would meet with the ends of justice. "(i) The society-original defendant in the Lavad Suit shall be allowed to file its reply to application Exh. 36 and to raise its stand in law as well as on facts about the plea of production of documents. The society is permitted to file such reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order; (ii) Resultantly, order below Exhibit 69 dated 18th February, 2016 passed by the Board of Nominee in Lavad Suit No. 465 of 2012 is hereby set aside. The right of the society to file reply is re-opened as per the above direction; (iii) The Board of Nominee shall consider the case of both the sides with respect to prayers at Exhibit 36 and decide the said application within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the reply of the society; (iv) The Board of Nominee shall also proceed to decide application dated 08th February, 2013 filed by the defendant society seeking a prayer that the Lavad Suit itself is liable to be dismissed as premature; (v) The decision of application Exh. 36 of the plaintiff as well as aforementioned application dated 08th February, 2013 by the defendant society shall be rendered simultaneously. 36 of the plaintiff as well as aforementioned application dated 08th February, 2013 by the defendant society shall be rendered simultaneously. Thereafter the Board of Nominee shall proceed with other interim applications as may be required to be decided;" 7. In view of above, while Special Civil Application No. 2956 of 2016 stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions whereas the other two petitions stands disposed of as not entertained, subject to the aforesaid providence in the directions issued hereinabove.