JUDGMENT S.J. Kathawalla, J. - The above Civil Application is filed under Section 340 read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Shri Satyanarayan N. Pande, Applicant abovenamed (Respondent No. 4 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016), against Mr. Vijaykumar Gulabchand Sarda and Kalpana Vijaykumar Sarda, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 abovenamed (Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016). 2. The above Civil Application along with Civil Application Nos. 497 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2017, 944 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 2016 and 482 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016 is placed for hearing. The facts in all the Civil Applications overlap to a large extent. Advocate Mr. Nilesh Ojha made his detailed submissions in Civil Application No. 482 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016 and submitted that the other three Civil Applications are similar. However, I am of the view that separate judgments are required to be written/passed in the Civil Applications, and accordingly I have done so. The Civil Applications were reserved for orders on 23rd July, 2018. However, before dictation of the judgments, Mr. Nilesh Ojha mentioned Notice of Motion No. 1433 of 2018 in Suit No. 929 of 2013 seeking reliefs under section 340 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 along with other matters. Though the said Notice of Motion was not related to the above Application and the other three connected Applications, the issue, as to whether the Court can hear the other side/Accused in the matter, was common. In the said Notice of Motion, Mr. Madon, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani and Mr.Aditya Shiralkar, instructed by M/s. Shiralkar and Company urged several grounds in support of their case that they ought to be heard in the matter. Mr. Ojha opposed the same and submitted that the said issue be decided as a preliminary issue. After hearing the Advocates at length on several adjourned dates, the decision on the preliminary issue was reserved for orders. The Advocates had agreed to file their written submissions. Thereafter, by a Notice dated 14th September, 2018, the assignment pertaining to the said matter was changed with effect from 17th September, 2018. However, on 18th September, 2018, Mr. Madon informed the Court that his written submissions are ready and Mr. Aameer Kale instructed by Mr. The Advocates had agreed to file their written submissions. Thereafter, by a Notice dated 14th September, 2018, the assignment pertaining to the said matter was changed with effect from 17th September, 2018. However, on 18th September, 2018, Mr. Madon informed the Court that his written submissions are ready and Mr. Aameer Kale instructed by Mr. Nilesh Ojha sought time to file the written submissions. However, on 25th September, 2018 Advocate Mr. Ojha submitted that since the assignments have changed, and written submissions are yet to be filed, this Court should refer the said Notice of Motion No. 1433 of 2018 in Suit No. 929 of 2013 to the Regular Court. In view thereof, by Order dated 25th September, 2018 the said matters were referred to the regular Court and it is only thereafter that the above Civil Applications were taken up for passing of Orders. On 17th December, 2018, Advocate for the Applicant mentioned the matter and requested the Court to pronounce the orders in the above Civil Applications. The Court informed the Advocate that in the above circumstances passing of orders has taken time. The Court however assured the Advocate for the Applicant that the order in the above Civil Application along with three Applications will be pronounced shortly. On 19th December, 2018, Mr. Ojha filed a praecipe and mentioned the matter before the Court, and inter alia informed the Court that he is relying on two more judgments i.e. judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and another (2014) 16 SCC 623 and the decision of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madangopal Banarasilal Jalan and others v. Partha s/o Sarathy Sarkar 2018 SCC Online Bom 3525 . Mr. Ojha tendered copies of both the judgments and requested the Court to pronounce the judgment at the earliest. With this prelude, I now proceed with the judgment hereunder : 3. Respondent No. 1 is the son of Gulabchand Sarda who passed away on 17th December, 2012. Respondent No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the said Gulabchand Sarda and wife of Respondent No.1. 4. The subject property is plot No. 49, Laxmi Niwas, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 ("the said Property"). The Society of the plot owners is known as, Shree Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 5. Respondent No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the said Gulabchand Sarda and wife of Respondent No.1. 4. The subject property is plot No. 49, Laxmi Niwas, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 ("the said Property"). The Society of the plot owners is known as, Shree Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 5. Nandkishore Ghasiram Pande was, amongst others, the father of the Applicant -Satyanarayan Pande and his brother Jagdishchandra Pande. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Police, inter alia, alleging that his brother Jagdishchandra Pande and one Gulabchand Sarda (who have passed away on 2nd October, 2013 and 17th December, 2012, respectively) had forged the death certificate of the Applicant''s father and with the help of false and fabricated documents and in connivance with the offce-bearers of Shree Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Limited, had managed to get the said Property transferred in their names. An FIR, being C.R. No. 226 of 2009, was registered at the instance of the Applicant against Accused No.1 - Jagdishchandra Pande (whose legal heirs are Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) and 18 others for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC'') read with Sections 34 and 120 (B) of the IPC, which was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (eOw) Unit II, Mumbai, vide C.R. No. 41 of 2009. All the 19 accused in the FIR later approached the Sessions Court at Mumbai seeking anticipatory bail which was granted to 16 accused persons, but was rejected in the case of Jagdishchandra Pande, Gulabchandra Sarda and Vijaykumar Sarda (Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively). Accused No.1 - Jagdishchandra Pande was arrested some time in 2009 by the EOW and he was in custody for more than 21 days before he was granted bail. 6. The remaining 16 persons had filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 2010 before this Court and by an Order dated 13th July, 2010, the investigation against them was stayed. It was clarified by the said Order that the same would not prevent any of the parties from approaching the Co-operative Court or the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 7. In the year 2012, EOW investigated the allegations against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 ( Jagdishchandra Pande, Gulabchand Sarda and Vijaykumar Sarda) and filed chargesheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Since Accused Nos. 7. In the year 2012, EOW investigated the allegations against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 ( Jagdishchandra Pande, Gulabchand Sarda and Vijaykumar Sarda) and filed chargesheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Since Accused Nos. 1 and 2 passed away during the trial, the Trial Court framed charges only against Accused No.3. 8. The Applicant had simultaneously filed and pursued Application No. 1 of 2009 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Wadala, Mumbai, setting out all his allegations qua fabrication of documents and the fraudulent transfer effected in favour of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda by the Society, and sought removal of the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda from the records of the Society. The Deputy Registrar allowed the said Application No. 1 of 2009. Revision Applications filed by the Society as well as Gulabchand Sarda before the Divisional Joint Registrar were also rejected. However, as set out in my Judgment also dated 22nd December, 2018 passed in Civil Application N. 482 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, whilst rejecting the Revision Application, the Divisional Joint Registrar, following the Judgment of this Court dated 14th June, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1431 of 2011 in the case of Nagesh Atmaram Madaye v. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, clarified that the disputes to title of property will be decided by Competent Courts and, therefore, the rights of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda in the said Property, if any, do not automatically come to an end; their remedy in law would remain to be intact and if they proceed in accordance with law to assert their title and succeed in getting appropriate declarations, the Respondent Society as well as the concerned parties will have to abide by the same. The Respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013 before a Single Judge of this Court impugning the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar in Application No. 1 of 2009. By an Order dated 1st July, 2013, passed in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013, the single Judge of this Court has quashed and set aside both the impugned orders by observing that if it is the case of Respondent No. 1 (Applicant herein) that Gulabchand Sarda got his name entered in the membership register by playing fraud on the Respondent Society, the Respondent no. 1 could have availed the remedies open to Respondent No. 1 in law. An Application under Section 25A of the Act was not tenable and the same could not have been entertained by the Deputy Registrar and, therefore, both the orders suffer from jurisdictional error and are liable to be quashed. A Special Leave Petition filed by the Applicant herein impugning the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 1st July, 2013, was also dismissed. 9. As set out in my Order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed in Civil Application No. 482 of 2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, the Applicant thereafter filed Dispute No. CC/IV/2014 before the Co-operative Court No. IV, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, against the heirs of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda (Respondents herein) on 25th April, 2014, for a declaration that the act of the Society to carry out the mutation entries in the records of the Society in the name of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda be declared null and void and for a declaration that the Resolution of the Society dated 9th January, 1994 passed in the Managing Committee of the Society to carry out the transfer of the said plot in the name of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda, be declared null and void. 10. The above Dispute filed by the Applicant is pending before the Co-operative Court till date. However, in the meantime the Applicant also filed Application No. 1 of 2014 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai, seeking a declaration that Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda have, upon their demise, ceased to be the nominee members of the Respondent Society. No right or interest therefore subsists in them with regard to Plot No. 49 and therefore the Respondent Society be directed to remove the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda from the Membership of the said Plot No. 49. 11. No right or interest therefore subsists in them with regard to Plot No. 49 and therefore the Respondent Society be directed to remove the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda from the Membership of the said Plot No. 49. 11. In the said Application No. 1 of 2014, the Applicant stated that in the year 1946, Plot No. 49 was allotted by the Society to Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar in their joint name ''Bapulal Nandkishor'' ; in the year 1949 common share certificate was issued by the Society in the joint name of ''Babulal Nandkishor'' ; in the year 1961 the Society executed lease deed in the name of ''Nandkishor Bapulal'' by changing earlier sequence of the names from ''Babulal Nandkishor'' to Nandkishor Bapulal'' ; that both ''Nandkishor and Babpulal'' are two different persons ; in the year 1977 Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar passed away without making any nomination and in the year 1990 Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande passed away without making any nomination ; in the year 1994 after four years of the demise of late Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande, Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande submitted Application for membership ; death certificate of Nandkishor Pande, false nomination and share transfer application and in collusion with the then offce bearers of the Society fraudulently got the share transferred on the basis of false and forged nomination form ; in the year 2008 the fraud committed by Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande stood exposed and the Society called an explanation from them ; both Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande confirmed that no person in the name of ''Nandkishor Babulal'' ever existed ; that they further confirmed that the Society by mistake passed a wrong resolution and enrolled them as member ; even thereafter the Society did not rectify its mistake ; on 17th December, 2013 Gulabchand Sarda passed away and on 2nd October, 2013 Jagdishchandra Pande also passed away ; since both the said deceased persons Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande were admitted as nominee members they ceased to be members of the Society ; it is well settled law that the nominees are mere trustees to administer the estate of deceased members ; the nominees do not become owners of the property ; they hold property in fiduciary capacity as trustees on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased members ; the nominees or their legal heirs are not entitled to claim or succeed to the estate/property of deceased member ; it is also well settled legal position that neither the nominee/s who are admitted as nominee members cannot make further nomination in favour of their legal heirs, nor can the property be transferred to legal heirs of nominee members ; it is evident that late Gulabchand Sarda and late Jagdishchandra Pande managed their entry in the membership register of the Society through false/forged nomination as supported by bogus/fabricated death certificate of a non existing person viz. Nandkishor Bapulal and they failed to obtain legal heirship certificate from the competent Court during their life time ; on 12th July, 2014 the Applicant has requested the Society to remove the names of deceased nominee members who have ceased to be members of the Society from membership register of the Society ; as the Respondent Society was hand-in-glove with the deceased nominee members, they did not accede to the request of the Applicant ; the Applicant therefore through his Advocate issued letter dated 15th July, 2014 calling upon the Society to remove the names of late Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande from the members register within 15 days from receipt of their notice, since they had ceased to be nominee member on their death and to restore the original status showing plot No. 49 in the name of ''Bapulal Nandkishor'' / ''Nandkishor Bapulal'' until all legal heirs are brought on record ; that the Society did not bother to give any reply to the Advocate''s letter/notice ; the Applicant was therefore constrained to file the said Application. 12. Though the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are admittedly the son and daughter-in-law of late Gulabchand Sarda, whose name the Applicant was seeking to get deleted from the membership of the said Plot No. 49, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) were not joined as party Respondents to the said Application No. 1 of 2014. 12. Though the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are admittedly the son and daughter-in-law of late Gulabchand Sarda, whose name the Applicant was seeking to get deleted from the membership of the said Plot No. 49, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) were not joined as party Respondents to the said Application No. 1 of 2014. In view thereof, on 2nd February, 2015, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) filed Intervention Application before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai stating that the Applicant has no locus standi in the matter ; the issue of removing the names of persons, who ceased to be members of the Society is non est, since the said persons are no more; the Intervenors (Respondents herein) are the nominees of the deceased Shri Gulabchand Sarda ; they had applied to the Society to accept them as members, however the said Application was refused and an Appeal therefrom is pending before the same forum and therefore they need to be heard in Application No. 1 of 2014 filed by the Applicant-Satyanarayan Nandkishor Pande ; that the facts narrated by the Applicant in Application No. 1 of 2016 need to be tested by evidence ; the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward is not invested with the power to grant relief in the nature of a declaration and the Application filed under the garb of Section 25A of the Act is misconceived and does not come under the purview of powers conferred by Section 25A of the Act ; the issue of limitation is also required to be considered/decided. 13. On 5th March, 2015 the Interveners (Respondents herein) filed Final Written Submission before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai, wherein they have repeated the submissions made in their Intervention Application and have also pointed out that an identical Application was made before the very same forum under Section 25 of the Act, being No. 1 of 2009 and the orders passed in favour of the Applicant, which were set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013. The Intervenors also pointed out that the Applicant has filed a substantive Suit (dispute) before the IVth Cooperative Court at Mumbai being M.A./11/2014, the maintainability of which is being heard as a preliminary issue by the Co-operative Court. 14. The Intervenors also pointed out that the Applicant has filed a substantive Suit (dispute) before the IVth Cooperative Court at Mumbai being M.A./11/2014, the maintainability of which is being heard as a preliminary issue by the Co-operative Court. 14. The Applicant-Satyanarayan Nandkishor Pande filed his Say/Reply dated 5th March, 2015 to the said Intervention Application, wherein he has submitted that the proposed Intervenors have not made out any case for intervention ; the proposed Intervenors have suppressed material facts to the effect that Shri Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda were admitted as members being nominees of the original members/owners i.e. Nandkishore Pande and Bapulal Jhawar; the nomination form, on the basis of which Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda were admitted as members is itself the subject matter of criminal prosecution on the ground that the same is forged, bogus and fraudulent ; Respondent No. 1 herein is the key Accused in the pending criminal prosecution and that the EOW, Crime Branch, Mumbai, has filed a charge-sheet against Respondent No.1, and the Criminal Court has already framed charges against Respondent No. 1 herein. The Applicant in his reply denied the allegation that he has no locus standi as alleged and the proposed Intervenors were put to strict proof thereof. The Applicant also submitted that the issue of admission of members and transmission is altogether a different issue and has nothing to do with the Application filed by him. The Applicant therefore sought dismissal of the Intervention Application. 15. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai after hearing the parties, by his Order dated 21st May, 2015 directed the Society to delete the names of late Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda within a period of two weeks and to submit compliance report to this offce. In his Order, the Deputy Registrar has recorded all the statements/allegations made by the Applicant qua Plot No. 49 since inception i.e. since the year 1946. The Deputy Registrar has also recorded the allegations made by the Applicant in his Application against late Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda with regard to the fabrication of the nomination form and the death certificate being of a non-existent person namely Nandkishore Bapulal. The Deputy Registrar has also recorded the allegations made by the Applicant in his Application against late Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda with regard to the fabrication of the nomination form and the death certificate being of a non-existent person namely Nandkishore Bapulal. The Deputy Registrar recorded that the heirs of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda have challenged the maintainability of the said Application on the ground that an identical Application was made before the very same forum under Section 25 of the Act and the orders passed therein have been set aside by a single Judge vide her order dated 1st July, 2013 passed in Writ Petition No.3124 of 2013, and that the Applicant has also filed a substantive dispute in the IVth Co-operative Court, Mumbai, but the same was rejected on the ground that pursuant to the demise of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda, a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the Applicant to move the said application for removal of their names ; that the said Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda were admitted to the membership on the basis of the nomination of the original member Nandkishor Bapulal; that whether the nomination is genuine or bogus has no relevance so far as the present application is concerned; that the nominee members have no inheritable interest and that they have no authority to make nomination; that in view of the death of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda, they ceased to be members as per Section 25A of the Act and their names are required to be removed by the Respondent Society from the membership register. The Respondent Society was therefore directed to remove the names of the said two deceased nominee members. 16. The heirs of Gulabchand Sarda filed a Revision Application under Section 154 of the Act, being Revision Application No. 184 of 2015 impugning the Order dated 21st May, 2015, passed by the Deputy Registrar. 17. On 27th July, 2015, the Applicant filed his "say/reply" to the Revision Application No. 239 of 2015 along with the stay Application filed by the Respondent herein. 17. On 27th July, 2015, the Applicant filed his "say/reply" to the Revision Application No. 239 of 2015 along with the stay Application filed by the Respondent herein. In the said say/reply the Applicant stated that the Intervenors (Respondents herein) have no locus standi to prefer a Revision Application from the order dated 21st May, 2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar in Application No. 1 of 2015 because the Applicants (Respondents herein) were not party to the said Application No. 1 of 2015 before the Deputy Registrar ; the Applicant has not made any Application before the Deputy Registrar seeking impleadment as party Respondents by making out a case that they are proper and necessary parties to the said Application No.1 of 2014 ; the Applicant have not pointed out any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order ; that admittedly Shri Gulabchand Sarda was himself a nominee member, nominated under the bogus nomination and/or on the basis of bogus and forged death certificate of ''Nandkishor Bapulal Pande'' ; it is settled Law that the nominee is the trustee and it is his responsibility to handover the estate of the deceased member to the lawful heirs of such deceased member; considering the legal status and capacity of the nominee he cannot nominate his nominee ; nomination therefore in favour of the Intevenors (Respondents herein) by Gulabchand Sarda is illegal, invalid and void ab initio ; moreover the nomination allegedly made by ''Nandkishor Bapulal'' ( under which the said nominee member - Gulabchand Sarda was appointed as nominee) is itself sub judice before the Criminal Court and therefore the Applicants have no right, title and interest to inherit the estate of late Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and late Bapulal Balamukund Jhawar under the disguise of the alleged or purported nomination allegedly made by the "non-existent individual" by name "Nandkishor Bapulal" ; that the purported illegal nomination in favour of the Applicants is not signed and executed by Jagdishchandra Nandkishor Pande and on this count alone the nomination of the Applicants is illegal ; that the order of the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar passed in Application No. 1 of 2009 filed by the Applicant was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ No. 3124 of 2013 on the technical ground of jurisdiction ; at that point of time the nominee members were alive ; however Application No. 1 of 2014 is made by the Applicant after the death of both the nominee members and on the ground that the name of the deceased members should be removed ; that this Court has not decided the issue on merits as alleged by the Intervenors ; in fact the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has rightly observed that the death of the nominee members gave new cause of action to file the Application under Section 25A of the Act. 18. The Intervenors (Respondents herein) filed their detailed Rejoinder dated 24th August, 2015 in response to the Reply filed by the Applicant dated 27th July, 2015 and reiterated their earlier stand stand in the matter. 19. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by his Order dated 5th October, 2015, has upheld the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar on the ground that since Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchandra Sarda have passed away, the Deputy Registrar was correct in directing the Respondent Society to remove the names of the deceased members under the provisions of Section 25A of the Act. 20. Writ Petition No.3503 of 2016 is therefore filed by the heirs of Gulabchand Sarda -Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) seeking quashing and setting aside of the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 21st May, 2015, directing the Society to delete the names of late Jagdishchandra Pande and late Gulabchand Sarda within a period of two weeks and the Order passed in Revision Application No. 239 of 2015 dated 5th October, 2015, dismissing the Revision Application and upholding the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 21st May, 2015. 21. In the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have challenged only two of the afore-stated impugned orders i.e. the Order dated 21st May, 2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar directing the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda to be removed from the Register, and the Order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, dated 5th October, 2015, upholding the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar, dated 21st May, 2015. The Respondents herein have along with the Writ Petition submitted points/issues which they are desirous of urging before the Writ Court, and the same are reproduced hereunder : "1. Whether the Deputy Registrar C.S. and the Appellate Authority have the jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a non-member of the Society as Applicant for an action under Section 25-A ? 2. Whether the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. can consider the plea of heirship and ownership of the cooperative society property held by a previous member and adjudicate the same ? 3. Can the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. order cancellation of names of members, who held shares and membership for over 18 years and order deletion under Section 25A without evidence to the acquisition of that membership ? 4. 3. Can the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. order cancellation of names of members, who held shares and membership for over 18 years and order deletion under Section 25A without evidence to the acquisition of that membership ? 4. Whether the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar C.S. are barred by limitation ? 5. Whether the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar C.S. is tenable when there is no challenge to the Resolution of the Society". 22. Though the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are in the above Writ Petition urging only the abovestated limited legal issues/points, it is pertinent to note that the Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein) have annexed to the Writ Petition a copy of Application No. 1 of 2014 along with the annexures filed under Section 25A of the Act by the Applicant herein ; a copy of the Intervention Application filed by the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) dated 2nd February, 20l5 ; a copy of the Final Written Submission of the Intervenors (Respondents herein) dated 5th March, 2015 ; a copy of the Reply filed by the Applicant dated 5th March, 2015 to the Intervention Application filed by the Intervenors (Respondents herein) ; a copy of the detailed order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai dated 21st May, 2015 ; a copy of the Revision Application No. 239 of 2015 ; a copy of the Reply filed by the Applicant (Respondent No. 3 therein) to the said Revision Application including the stay Application dated 27th July, 2015 ; a copy of the Rejoinder of the Applicants (Respondents herein) to the Reply filed by Respondent No. 3 (Applicant herein) to their Revision Application ; a copy of the Order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013 and the Order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 5th October, 2015 in Revision Application No. 239 of 2015. Thus the history of the said property right since its allotment in the year 1946, and the allegations/submissions of the Applicant qua the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Shri Gulabchand Sarda, Jagdishchandra Pande and Respondent No. 1 herein, including particulars of the criminal and civil proceedings and orders passed therein is available in the above proceedings/submissions/orders, and the same is placed before the Court along with the Writ Petition by the Respondents themselves. 23. 23. It is only after the above Writ Petition was filed on 2nd February, 2016, by the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein), that on 9th March, 2016, the EOW filed Criminal Application No. 129 of 2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 2010, setting out therein, that in the year 2012 they had filed charge-sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the investigation was stayed by this Court qua the other 16 accused by an Order dated 13th July, 2010 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 2010; that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda passed away on 2nd October, 2013 and 17th December, 2012 respectively, and the Trial Court has framed charges only against Respondent No.3; that to enable EOW to proceed against the other 16 accused, this Court be pleased to either vacate the stay or dispose of Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 2010, finally. 24. On 6th February, 2018, the Applicant, who is Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016, filed the above Civil Application under Section 340 read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Applicant in his Application, after relying on the contents of the Application filed by the EOW (which Application is filed by the EOW after the filing of Writ Petition No.3503 of 2016 by the Respondents herein), has submitted that the Respondents have dishonestly and with mala fide intention made false and misleading submissions on oath, and that the Respondents have deliberately and dishonestly in their Civil Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016 concealed material facts and have made false statements, misrepresentations, thereby playing a fraud upon the Court by wrongful and illegal means, with the intention to obtain favourable orders. The Applicant has set out a Table under two columns. The first column is titled "False submissions in Writ Petition by the Applicant" and the second column is titled as "True facts". After setting out the said Table, the Applicant has submitted that the Respondents have made false allegations and submissions in Court proceedings and are therefore liable to be punished for having committed offences under Sections 199, 200, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120 (B), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 25. After setting out the said Table, the Applicant has submitted that the Respondents have made false allegations and submissions in Court proceedings and are therefore liable to be punished for having committed offences under Sections 199, 200, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120 (B), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 25. In support of his submission, the Advocate for the Applicant has relied on the following case laws: (i) Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 214 , wherein the Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has held that, it is the legal duty of a party to state in the pleadings the true facts and if they do not, they must suffer the consequences and the Court should not hold back from taking action ; a party, whether he is a Petitioner or a Respondent, or a Witness, has to respect the solemnity of the proceedings in the Court and he cannot play with the Courts and pollute the stream of justice; It is cases like this, with false claims (or false defences) which load the Courts, cause delays, consume judicial time and bring a bad name to the judicial system ; once falsehood is apparent, to not take action would be improper ; the judicial system has a right and a duty to protect itself from such conduct by the litigants and to ensure that where such conduct has taken place, the matter is investigated and reaches its logical conclusion, and depending on the finding which is returned in such proceedings, appropriate 3 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 214 punishment is meted out ; making false averment in the pleading pollutes the stream of justice. It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong Judgment and that is why it must be treated as an offence ; ordering of the preliminary inquiry also includes investigation by a state agency, where the nature is such that a private party in civil proceedings could not possibly gather and place before the Court certain facts, documents, etc. Many times, there can be suspicion, strong suspicion, or even suspicion that borders on conviction, and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to lodge a complaint, but there may be no suffcient legal evidence on record at that time to so proceed. Many times, there can be suspicion, strong suspicion, or even suspicion that borders on conviction, and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to lodge a complaint, but there may be no suffcient legal evidence on record at that time to so proceed. (ii) In the case of H.S.Bedi v. National Highway Authority of India 2016 (155) DRJ 259 , the Delhi High Court has held that false evidence in vast majority of cases springs out of false pleadings, and the same would entirely banish from the Courts if false pleadings could be prevented ; unless the judicial system protects itself from such wrongdoing by taking cognizance, directing prosecution, and punishing those found guilty, it will be failing in its duty to render justice to the citizens ; the justice delivery system has to be pure and should be such that the persons who are approaching the Courts must be afraid of making false claims ; those who indulge in immoral acts like false claims have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it, in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail; once it prima facie appears that an 4 2016 (155) DRJ 259 offence under Section 209 of Indian Penal Code has been made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice, the Court should not hesitate to make a complaint under section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (iii) In the case of M/s.A-One Industries v. D.P.Garg 1999 Cri.L.J. 4743 , the Delhi High Court has relied on the following passage from the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995) 4 JT (SC) 483 : (AIR 1995) SC 795): ".......................Filing of false affdavits or making false statement on oath in Court aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institution because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone reporting to filing of false affdavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of Law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice". (iv) In the case of K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors (2008) 12 SCC 481. the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that as per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to be truthful, frank and open; he must disclose all material facts without any reservation, even if they are against him; he cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not disclose (conceal) other facts; the very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in the disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts; If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible; the petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the Court knows law but not facts". An Applicant who does not come with candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a Writ of the Court with "soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the Applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the Rule Nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the Petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. If the Court does not reject the Petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an Applicant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. (v) In the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that, " It is necessary to give a salutary clarion caution to all courts, including the High Courts, to be extremely careful and circumspect in concluding a judgment of the Supreme Court to be per incuriam..... An earlier judgment cannot possibly be seen as per incuriam a later judgment as the latter if numerically stronger only then it would overrule the former" (vi) In the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2002 Cri.L.J. 548 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the scheme underlying sections 340, 343, 238, 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly shows that there is no statutory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the persons against whom that Court might file a complaint before the Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings; once the prosecution proceedings commence the person against whom the accusation is made has a legal right to be heard; such a legal protection is incorporated in the Scheme of the Code; the principle of natural justice would not be hampered by not hearing the person concerned at the stage of deciding whether such persons should be proceeded against or not; the Court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 of the Code is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the Magistrate. At that stage, the Court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. (vii) In the case of Union of India and Ors. At that stage, the Court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. (vii) In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Haresh Virumal Milani 2018 (1) Bom.C.R. 769 , a learned Single Judge of this Court while considering the issue as to whether the Civil Court has right to use the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, has held that section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not restrict itself to only Criminal Courts, but the legislature has intended a wider meaning by using the word "Court"; thus the Civil Court while conducting preliminary inquiry or conducting other proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code enjoys similar powers of a Criminal Court under the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of the said inquiry or proceedings under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; for complaint under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by any Court, it is not necessary for the Judge to hear other side, but he may hear the Applicant. It is not a requirement to hear the person against whom proceedings are going to be initiated; thus, it is not necessary for the Court to give notice to the said person or even to hear that person. (viii) In the case of Madangopal Banarasilal Jalan and others (supra), a Learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to the decision of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant therein has held that there can be no dispute about the principle of law that at the stage of passing of an order directing the preliminary enquiry or even accepting the application filed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused does not have any say in the matter. Referring to another decision of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Fareed Ahmed Qureshi v. The State of Maharashtra and another 2018 SCC online Bombay 960 relied on by the advocate for the applicant before the Learned Single Judge, the Learned Single Judge has held that when the facts available on record unmistakably point out that the accused has continued to make defamatory and false statements, even after those statements made previously by him have been found to be false, the Court has no option but to take cognizance of the complaint made by the aggrieved person and the Court shall be within its right to direct the Registrar ( Judicial) to file an appropriate complaint. I have gone through the Judgment in the case of Fareed Ahmed Qureshi (supra). From para 8 of the said order, it is clear that in that matter a case for filing complaint under Section 340 read with section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for making false statement before the Court, contrary to the record and for not disclosing true and correct facts, was made out. 26. section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is reproduced hereunder: "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such offcer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding offcer of the Court. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195. 27. Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is also reproduced hereunder: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code,(45 of 1860) namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (c) .............. 28. When I was going through the reliefs sought by the Applicant in Civil Application No. 482 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, which prayer is also repeated in the above Civil Application, I noted that the Applicant has also prayed that this Court be pleased to, "commit the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to custody in view of section 340 (1) (d) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 as the Respondents have produced fabricated death certificate and false nomination, false share transfer form, false resolution and false intimation letter and misguided the Court by further making misleading averments in the petition which are false and frivolous as the offences are non-bailable one". I therefore enquired from Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocate for the Plaintiff, whether notice has been issued to the Respondents. Mr. I therefore enquired from Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocate for the Plaintiff, whether notice has been issued to the Respondents. Mr. Ojha submitted that the Respondents cannot be heard at this stage, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and by the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Haresh Milani (supra). Though I subsequently was of the view, that the Respondents are not required to be heard in the matter, I would like to clarify that what is held in the above decisions is that there is no statutory requirement /mandate to afford an opportunity of hearing, to the persons against whom the court might file a complaint, and therefore the Respondents in a case of Section 340 are not required to be heard as a matter of right. However, it cannot be disputed that if the Court feels the need to hear the Respondent in an Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court is not precluded from doing so, and therefore the submission of Mr. Ojha, that the Respondent cannot be heard at this stage is not accepted. 29. I have perused the above Application as well as Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016 (filed on 27th January, 2016) along with its annexures. 30. From the above facts, it is clear i. That pursuant to the complaint filed by the Applicant, an FIR was filed vide C.R. No. 226 of 2009 punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120 (B) and 34 of IPC against Jagdishchandra Pande (brother of the Applicant), Gulabchand Sarda, Vijaykumar Sarda (Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3) and 16 others, inter alia, on the ground that they have fabricated the death certificate, the nomination form and have fraudulently transferred the said Property in favour of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda. The charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer (EOW, Mumbai) against Jagdishchandra Pande, Gulabchand Sarda and Vijaykumar Sarda (Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3). Investigations have been stayed by this Court against the other 16 accused who are the Office-Bearers of the Society. Chargesheet was issued by EOW to Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer (EOW, Mumbai) against Jagdishchandra Pande, Gulabchand Sarda and Vijaykumar Sarda (Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3). Investigations have been stayed by this Court against the other 16 accused who are the Office-Bearers of the Society. Chargesheet was issued by EOW to Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, since pending the trial, Accused No. 1 -- Jagdishchandra Pande and Accused No. 2 - Gulabchand Sarda passed away on 2nd October, 2013 and 17th December, 2012 respectively, the Trial Court has framed charges only against Respondent No.3. The charges impleaded by the EOW in the charge-sheet need to be proved in a Court of competent jurisdiction. However, the trial is still pending. ii. That as stated hereinabove, the Applicant simultaneously filed and pursued Application No. 1 of 2009 before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Wadala, Mumbai, setting out all his allegations qua fabrication of documents and the fraudulent transfer effected in favour of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda by the Society, and sought removal of the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda from the records of the Society. The Deputy Registrar allowed the said Application No. 1 of 2009. Revision Application filed by the Society as well as Gulabchand Sarda were also rejected. However, as set out in my Judgment also dated 22nd December, 2018 passed in Civil Application N. 482 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, whilst rejecting the Revision Application, the Divisional Joint Registrar, following the Judgment of this Court dated 14th June, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 1431 of 2011 in the case of Nagesh Atmaram Madaye v. Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, clarified that the disputes to title of property will be decided by competent courts and, therefore, the rights of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda in the said Property, if any, do not automatically come to an end; their remedy in law would remain intact and if they proceed in accordance with law to assert their title and succeed in getting appropriate declarations, the Respondent Society as well as the concerned parties will have to abide by the same. iii. iii. That by an Order dated 1st July, 2013, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013 filed by the Respondent herein against the Applicant and others, impugning the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 7th July, 2009 allowing the application filed by the Applicant under Section 25A of the Act, as also the Order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 16th October, 2012, rejecting the Revision Application, the Learned Judge, as stated hereinabove, has quashed and set aside both the Orders by observing that if it is the case of Respondent No. 1 (Applicant herein) that Gulabchand Sarda got his name entered in the membership register by playing fraud on the Respondent Society, the Respondent no. 1 could have availed the remedies open to Respondent No. 1 in law. An Application under Section 25A of the Act was not tenable and the same could not have been entertained by the Deputy Registrar, and therefore both the orders suffer from jurisdictional error and are liable to be quashed. A Special Leave Petition filed by the Applicant herein impugning the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 1st July, 2013, was also dismissed. iv. That as set out in my Order dated 22nd December, 2018 passed in Civil Application No., 482 of 2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, the Applicant therefore filed a dispute being Dispute No. CC/IV of 2014 before the Co-operative Court No. IV, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, on 25th April, 2014, against the Society, the heirs of Jagdishchandra Pande (i.e. Respondents herein) and also the heirs of Gulabchand Sarda setting out in detail all that had transpired till the date of filing of the said dispute, including the allegations of forgery and fabrication qua the transfer of the said property in favour of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda, including the fact that an FIR No. 226 of 2009 is registered against Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 1, 2 and 3. In the said dispute, the Applicant has prayed for a declaration that the act of the Society to carry out the mutation entries in the records of the Society in the name of late Jagdishchandra Pande and late Gulabchand Sarda be declared as null and void and it be further declared that the Resolution dated 9th January, 1994 passed in the Managing Committee of the Society to carry out the transfer of the said plot in the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda be declared as null and void. The Applicant has in his above Civil Application in the column captioned 'True Facts' has admitted that the nomination by Nandkishore Pande and Bapulal Jhawar in favour of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda is challenged by him in the said dispute. The said dispute is pending till date. v. That pending the adjudication of the said dispute, as well as the criminal complaint filed by the Applicant, the Applicant filed Application No. 1 of 2014 under Section 25A of the Act, once again setting out the entire history of the said property right since its allotment in the year 1946 and also all the allegations of forgery and fabrication against Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda, as set out in detail in the paragraph 12 above. The Applicant in his Application submitted that on 12th July, 2014, he had requested the Society to remove the names of deceased nominee members who have ceased to be members of the Society from the membership register of the Society in view of their death, and therefore, inter alia, sought a direction to remove the name of late Jagdishchandra Pande and late Gulabchand Sarda from the Members Register/membership of the Society as they ceased to be nominee members and have no subsisting interest in the said plot and shares, but the Society did not accede to his request. vi. Though the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are admittedly the son and daughter-in-law of late Gulabchand Sarda, whose name the Applicant was seeking to get deleted from the membership of the said Plot No. 49, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) were not joined as party Respondents to the said Application No. 1 of 2014. In view thereof, on 2nd February, 2015, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) filed Intervention Application before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai. In view thereof, on 2nd February, 2015, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) filed Intervention Application before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai. The statements/submissions made in the Intervention Application are set out in detail in paragraph 12 above. vii. That on 5th March, 2015 the Intervenor filed Written Submission before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai as set out in paragraph 13 above. viii. That the Applicant-Satyanarayan Nandkishor Pande filed his say/reply dated 5th March, 2015 to the said Intervention Application making statements/submission therein, which are inter alia set out in paragraph 14 above. ix. By his order dated 21st May, 2015, the said application was allowed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward. In his said Order, the Deputy Registrar held that the issue whether the nomination is genuine or bogus has no relevance so far as the said Application No. 1 of 2014 is concerned, but is the said application is decided on the ground that the nominee members have no inheritable interest and that they have no authority to make further nomination. The Divisional Joint Registrar, by his Order dated 5th October, 2015, upheld the Order passed by the Deputy Registrar, by holding that the Applicant filed the new Application under Section 25a of the Act before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, for removal of the name of late Jagdishchandra Pande and late Gulabchand Sarda on a fresh cause of action, i.e. both the members have passed away and therefore their names are required to be removed. x. That the aforesaid Order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 21st May, 2015 and the order dated 5th October, 2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, are impugned by the Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein) on very limited points/ issues, which they are desirous of urging. The said points/issues are once again reproduced hereunder : "1. Whether the Deputy Registrar C.S. and the Appellate Authority have the jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding by a non-member of the Society as Applicant for an action under Section 25-A ? 2. Whether the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. can consider the plea of heirship and ownership of the cooperative society property held by a previous member and adjudicate the same ? 3. 2. Whether the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. can consider the plea of heirship and ownership of the cooperative society property held by a previous member and adjudicate the same ? 3. Can the Deputy Registrar C.S. and Divisional Joint Registrar C.S. order cancellation of names of members, who held shares and membership for over 18 years and order deletion under Section 25A without evidence to the acquisition of that membership ? 4. Whether the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar C.S. are barred by limitation ? 5. Whether the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar C.S. is tenable when there is no challenge to the Resolution of the Society". xi. That in any event, as stated above, the Respondents herein have annexed to their Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016, a copy of Application No. 1 of 2014 along with the annexures, filed under Section 25A of the Act by the Applicant herein ; a copy of the Intervention Application filed by the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) dated 2nd February, 2015 ; a copy of the Final Written Submission of the Intervenors (Respondents herein) dated 5th March, 2015 ; a copy of the Reply filed by the Applicant dated 5th March, 2015 to the Intervention Application filed by the Intervenors (Respondents herein) ; a copy of the detailed order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai dated 21st May, 2015 ; a copy of the Revision Application No. 239 of 2015 ; a copy of the Reply filed by the Applicant (Respondent No. 3 therein) to the said Revision Application including the stay Application dated 27th July, 2015 ; a copy of the Rejoinder of the Applicants (Respondents herein) to the Reply filed by Respondent No. 3 (Applicant herein) to their Revision Application ; a copy of the Order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2013 and the Order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 5th October, 2015 in Revision Application No. 239 of 2015. xii. xii. That the Applicant in the above Civil Application has heavily relied on the contents of Criminal Application No. 129 of 2016 filed by the EOW in Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 2010 seeking vacation of the stay order qua investigations against the 16 other accused who are the Office-Bearers of the Society, in which certain statements are found qua the investigation and also certain facts in the matter have been recorded. As stated earlier, the said Application is filed by the EOW after Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2016 is filed by the Petitioners. Again, as stated hereinabove, the facts pertaining to the criminal complaint including the fact that the charges are framed against Respondent No.1 herein are found in the documents annexed to the Writ Petition. In fact, every detail of the said property right since the formation of the Society in the year 1946 and every allegation/submission of the Applicant - Satyanarayan Pande qua the fraud allegedly perpetrated by Shri Gulabchand Sarda, Jagdishchandra Pande and Respondent No. 1 herein, including particulars of the criminal and civil proceedings and orders passed therein, is available in the above proceedings/submissions/orders placed before the Court by the Respondents themselves. xiii. Therefore the Respondents herein, who are Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 2016, have not made any false statements and/or any misrepresentation, nor have they suppressed any facts from this Court, but have themselves placed all the facts/allegations/submissions made by the Applicant, before the Writ Court. 28. I now proceed to deal with the allegations of alleged false submissions as set out by the Applicant in the above Application. 29. It is alleged by the Applicant that in the Synopsis (Serial No.1) of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "... Late Shri Gulabchand R. Sarda who was Co-Owner of Plot No. 49 along with Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Nandkishor Pande in the Respondent No. 3 Society". 29.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have suppressed the material fact that neither Jagdishchandra Pande nor Gulabchand Sarda were owners of Plot No. 49. In fact, Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar were joint owners and Plot No. 49 was registered in the joint name of Nandkishor Bapulal. 29.2. In fact, Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar were joint owners and Plot No. 49 was registered in the joint name of Nandkishor Bapulal. 29.2. The Applicant has at page 16 of his Civil Application stated that he is setting out the 'false submissions' made by the Petitioner therein (Respondent No. 2 herein) in the Writ Petition. However, the Applicant has now relied on the alleged false submission made in the Synopsis and not in the Writ Petition. In any event, perusal of the impugned orders shows that though all the submissions and allegations qua Plot No. 49 including its ownership are recorded therein, the direction given to the Society to delete the names of Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda is not based on the issue pertaining to the ownership/co-ownership of Plot No. 49. Even otherwise, all submissions/allegations including that of co-ownership made by the parties, more particularly that of the Applicant, are found in the applications/submission, and the impugned orders are annexed to the Writ Petition. The question therefore of the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) having made any false statement/s with a view to mislead the Court into passing a wrong Judgment, or to obtain favourable orders, does not arise. 30. It is alleged by the Applicant that in the Synopsis (Serial No.2) of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "The said entries were made in the register of the Society in the year 1994, following the procedure adopted by the Society". 30.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the statement is absolutely false. In fact, Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande in conspiracy with the office-bearer of the Society has tampered with the death certificate of the Applicant's father and prepared false and fraudulent documents such as nomination form, share transfer form, resolution and false intimation letter and become nominee members based on these fraudulent documents, without following procedure adopted by the Society. 30.2. The Applicant has at page 16 of his Civil Application stated that he is setting out the 'false submissions' made by the Petitioner therein (Respondent No. 2 herein) in the Writ Petition. However, the Applicant has now relied on the alleged false submission made in the Synopsis and not in the Writ Petition. 30.2. The Applicant has at page 16 of his Civil Application stated that he is setting out the 'false submissions' made by the Petitioner therein (Respondent No. 2 herein) in the Writ Petition. However, the Applicant has now relied on the alleged false submission made in the Synopsis and not in the Writ Petition. In any event, the decisions of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies are not based on the alleged tampered death certificate or on any false or fraudulent documents. In fact, in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar in Application No. 1 of 2014, it is specifically stated that whether the nomination is genuine or bogus, has no relevance so far as Application No. 1 of 2014 is concerned. Therefore, the issue pertaining to any forged or fabricated documents, does not form the subject matter of the Writ Petition and therefore the same is not relevant for deciding the Writ Petition. In any event, all submissions and allegations in regard to the said Plot No. 49, the police complaint filed by the Applicant, charge framed by the Criminal Court against Respondent No.1/Accused are found in the proceedings, submissions and orders including the impugned orders, which are all annexed to the Writ Petition by the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein) themselves. The Petitioners therein (Respondents herein) having placed all the material before the Court along with the Writ Petition, certainly cannot be said to have suppressed any fact or have made false statement with the intention to mislead the Court and thereby obtain favourable orders. 31. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, ".... The Petitioners are nominees of an earlier member of the society, who had nominated them to receive his share and members after his death....". 31.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have suppressed the material fact that the said statement is totally false as the Respondents were fully aware that Gulabchand Sarda who had nominated the Respondent was himself a nominee member and as per the settled principles of law a nominee cannot further nominate. The Applicant has once again repeated his allegation that the Respondent is aware that Gulabchand Sarda was admitted as nominee of Nandkishor Pande with the help of a tampered death certificate and false nomination, for which the FIR has been filed by him and a charge-sheet, after investigation has been filed by the police and charges are framed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Applicant has also stated that the Respondents are aware that the said nomination is also challenged before the Co-operative Court and despite that they have filed the Writ Petition to mislead the Court. 31.2 The submission of the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) is not accepted by the authorities in their impugned orders. The said orders are therefore impugned in the above Writ Petition. As stated earlier, the impugned orders are not based on any forged/fabricated documents or on the basis of the criminal complaint or investigations carried out therein. None of the issues forming the subject matter of the dispute filed before the Cooperative Court by the Applicant have been decided till date. In any event, all the submissions and allegations in regard to the said Plot No. 49, the police complaint filed by the Applicant, the charge framed by the Criminal Court against Respondent No.1/Accused, are found in the proceedings, submissions and orders, including the impugned orders, which are all annexed to the Writ Petition by the Respondents herein (Petitioners herein) themselves, and therefore it cannot be asserted that the Respondents herein have made false averments in an attempt to invite the Court into passing a wrong Judgment or have suppressed facts in order to mislead the Court and obtain favourable orders. 32. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition, that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, ".....The respondent no. 4 is the person who initiated the action, albeit without the locus standi to do so, not being a member of the society...". 32.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have suppressed the material fact that the Applicant's father Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande was a joint member with Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar. Since Nandkishor Pande has expired, the Applicant being one of the legal heirs has claimed the membership through his father and therefore the Applicant has locus. Since Nandkishor Pande has expired, the Applicant being one of the legal heirs has claimed the membership through his father and therefore the Applicant has locus. 32.2. The Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have explained in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition that they have already taken a stand in Appeal No. 1 of 2014 before the Deputy Registrar that the said Application is filed by the Applicant without locus standi as the Applicant therein (Respondent No. 4) was not even a member of the Society and as such could not take recourse to any proceedings under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 that governed the transaction between the Society and its members. In paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have again reiterated that the Respondent No. 4 never had locus standi as a member to even approach the statutory authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act and both the lower authorities refused to appreciate this fact while adjudicating the proceedings. The said issue will therefore be decided by the Writ Court, and the question of any suppression of relevant fact or making a false statement, with the intention to mislead the Court or to obtain favourable orders does not arise. 33. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, ".....Respondent no. 4 who is the real younger brother of Jagdishchandra N. Pande, filed application no. 1 of 2014 under section 25-A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for deletion of the names of the earlier members i.e. Gulabchand R. Sarda and Jagdishchandra N. Pande after the death of both these joint holders". 33.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Applicant had filed an Application in 2009 for disqualification of fraudulent members i.e. Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande ; the orders were passed in his favour but the same were set aside by the High Court due to jurisdictional error and that the High Court had not decided the matter on the merits of the case ; since both the deceased members passed away in 2009, he filed an Application for removal of their names under Section 25A of the Act ; the cause of action was therefore continued from 2009 onwards. 33.2. 33.2. What is stated by the Respondents and reproduced in paragraph 33 above is a fact and the same cannot be termed as a "false statement" only because the Applicant wants to give some explanation qua the Application filed by him in 2009. 34. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, ".....Not only was the filing made after the death of the two aforesaid members, but at a time when the Petitioners had filed their papers for transmission of the shares and membership as the nominees claiming after the death of the nominator member Mr.G.R.Sarda.....". 34.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar were joint owners of Plot No. 49 ; the death certificate of Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande was tampered with and that there is no living person by the name Nandkishor Bapulal Pande and on the basis of the tampered death certificate, Jagdishchanra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda became nominee members of the Society. 34.2. All the contentions of the Applicant including the above contentions, are already recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his order impugned in the Writ Petition. In any event as set out herein, the said contentions are not taken into consideration by the authorities whilst passing the impugned orders. The Applicant himself has submitted that the facts pertaining to the genuineness of the nomination form etc. are subject matter before the Criminal Court and sub judice. Again, the Applicant has himself stated that the issue of nomination is challenged by him in the dispute filed by him before the Cooperative Court, which is pending. The question therefore of the Respondents herein (Petitioners herein) suppressing any fact as alleged, with the intention of misleading the Court, or in attempting to get favourable orders from the Court, does not arise. 35. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made false submission that, ".... that the petitioners intervened in that proceeding filed by the Respondent No. 4 against Respondent No. 3 Society before the authority (Respondent No.2) and contested the matter". 35.1. 35. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made false submission that, ".... that the petitioners intervened in that proceeding filed by the Respondent No. 4 against Respondent No. 3 Society before the authority (Respondent No.2) and contested the matter". 35.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents have contested the matter even after knowing that his father Gulabchand Sarda became a member of the Society based upon a fraudulent document. The Applicant has again repeated his allegations qua false nomination form, police complaint and the statements of Jagdishchanra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda being nominee members. 35.2 The portion quoted in paragraph 4 from the Writ Petition is completely factual and the same cannot be termed as a false submission by any stretch of imagination. I have repeatedly recorded herein that the orders impugned in the Writ Petition are not decided on the basis of any fabricated documents or investigations carried out by the police. The challenge to the impugned orders is also therefore limited to the points/issues, which the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are desirous of urging and have submitted the same to the Court along with the Writ Petition. Even otherwise, all the allegations made by the Applicant are recorded in the proceedings filed by the parties and annexed to the Writ Petition by the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein). All allegations made by the Applicant are also recorded in the impugned orders. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein) have suppressed any facts, or have made false submissions with the intention to mislead the Court, or to obtain favourable orders. 36. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made false submission that, "The Petitioners had stated in their intervention that the Application No.1 of 2014 to be without Locus standi". 36.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are aware that the Applicant is the heir of the original co-owner i.e. late Nandkishore Gashiram Pande and therefore the Applicant has locus standi. 36.2. 36.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are aware that the Applicant is the heir of the original co-owner i.e. late Nandkishore Gashiram Pande and therefore the Applicant has locus standi. 36.2. The Petitioners therein (Respondents herein) have in fact stated in the Intervention Application filed by them before the Deputy Registrar in Application No. 1 of 2014, that the Applicant has no locus standi to file the said Application. The question therefore of any false submission being made in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petitioner does not arise. 37. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "The transmission of the shares and membership was in progress with the Society ceased of the matter of considering the Application of 16 July 2013 of the Petitioners for claiming membership under nomination." 37.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that it is wrong on the part of the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) to even make an Application for membership and transfer shares, as their nominator Gulabchand Sarda is admitted as nominee member with the help of tampered death certificate and other fraudulent documents for which criminal FIR was filed. 37.2 The Petitioners therein (Respondents herein) had indeed made an Application to the Society claiming membership as nominees of Gulabchand Sarda which Application was being considered by the Society. The statement is factually correct. The representation made to the Court by the Applicant that the same is a false submission by placing under the column of 'false submissions made in Writ Petition' is incorrect and misleading. Though the same is therefore, not required to be dealt with, it needs to be reiterated that the impugned orders are not based on the alleged tampered nomination or any other documents or the police complaint or investigations which are carried out, but is passed only upon considering the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and therefore the Writ Petitioners have also submitted limited points/issues which they seek to urge before the Writ Court and have also submitted the same along with the Writ Petition. 38. 38. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "....The Respondent no. 4 as Applicant of the section 25A proceeding had never even challenged the resolution of the society that conferred membership upon the deceased member..." 38.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Applicant has challenged the resolution of 1994 of the Society by filing dispute in Cooperative Court bearing M.A.No. 11 of 2014 and the Respondent is also party to the said dispute. 38.2 The Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have themselves in their submission before the Deputy Registrar submitted that a substantive Suit / Dispute is filed by the Applicant being M.A. No. 11 of 2014. The dispute filed before the Cooperative Court is also referred to in the three other Civil Applications decided by this Court. The question therefore of any false submission being made with the intention to mislead the Court, or to obtain favourable orders does not arise. 39. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "....The earlier application no. 01 of 2009 filed by the same applicant for the same relief was carried upto high court ...........". 39.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the cause of action is different in both the Application. 39.2 The statement as quoted in paragraph 39 above, is factually correct and cannot be termed as a false submission ; that the explanation of the Applicant that the cause of action in both the Applications is different, is accepted by the authorities in the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. 40. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that "....The society did not file their version or make any submission in both the proceedings, though they attended the hearing from time to time.........." 40.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Society filed their version before the Deputy Registrar and the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) want to misguide the Court. It is thereafter alleged that the Society was aware of the fraudulent facts and criminal complaint, hence they have not objected. 40.2 The version of the Society allegedly filed before the Deputy Registrar is not placed before this Court. In fact, I have noted that in paragraph 11 of the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar, it is recorded that the Respondent Society though served, have not filed any Reply or opposed the said Application. Thus the statement of the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) as quoted in paragraph 40 is factually correct and the Applicant has wrongly termed the same as a false submission. 41. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "....The Petitioner also submits that the applicant respondent no. 4 never challenged the membership of the members or the act of the society in conferring membership at any time....". 41.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that according to the Applicant he came to know about the fraud committed by Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande qua membership in the year 2008 and since then he has challenged the membership of Gulabchand Sarda and Jagdishchandra Pande by filing the Application before the Deputy Registrar for removal of their names and has also filed FIR No. 226 of 2009 with the Andheri Police Station, Mumbai. The cause of action has therefore continued since 2009 till date. 41.2 All the facts pertaining to the said Plot No. 49, since inception including facts pertaining to the proceedings taken out by the parties in regard thereto are placed before the Writ Court by the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein). The question therefore of any suppression, or false statement being made with the intention to mislead the Court, or to obtain favourable orders does not arise. 42. The question therefore of any suppression, or false statement being made with the intention to mislead the Court, or to obtain favourable orders does not arise. 42. It is alleged by the Applicant that in paragraph 13 of the Writ Petition, the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) have made a false submission that, "....The orders of the Respondent No. upholding the reliefs prayed by the Respondent No.4 in his Application under Section 25A are patiently illegal, without jurisdiction and hence a nullity and a highly incorrect and perverse Application of the statutory law." 42.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the statement made by the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) is absolutely wrong; in fact on the contrary the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) are trying to continue the fraud, which Gulabchand Sarda started, by abusing the process of law. 42.2. This is a submission made in the Writ Petition by the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein). The same is denied and disputed by the Applicant in the above Civil Application. Since all the relevant proceedings, documents, orders etc. are placed before the Writ Court by the Petitioners therein (Respondents herein), the question of the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) having suppressed facts or having made any false submissions with the intention to mislead the Court or to obtain favourable orders, does not arise. 43. In view of the above, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the above Civil Application as the Respondents have not suppressed any facts or documents which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the above Writ Petition and have also not made any attempt to mislead the Court in the manner alleged or otherwise or with the intention alleged or otherwise. The Respondents herein (Petitioners in the Writ Petition) have been transparent with the Court. They have along with the Writ Petition placed before the Court all the proceedings, written submissions, orders, wherein the case of the Applicant is set out in its entirety. The Respondents herein (Petitioners in the Writ Petition) have been transparent with the Court. They have along with the Writ Petition placed before the Court all the proceedings, written submissions, orders, wherein the case of the Applicant is set out in its entirety. Therefore, the question of holding that the Respondents have in the Writ Petition made incorrect statements or have suppressed any facts or documents or have relied on documents, with the intention to mislead the Court and obtain favourable orders, as alleged by the Applicant, does not arise and the case law cited by the Applicant in this regard also renders no assistance to his case. Since the Applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of any relief under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the above Civil Application is dismissed.