JUDGMENT AND ORDER : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Nishit Gandhi, learned advocate for Ms. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 society. No one has entered appearance for respondent no.2. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that : "20(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 24.11.2009 passed below Exh4 in Lavad Case No. 371/2009 by learned Board of Nominees, Rajkot (at ANNEXUREH) as well as dated 29.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Revision Application No.243 of 2009 (at ANNEXUREI); (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 24.11.2009 passed below Exh-4 in Lavad Case No. 371 of 2009 by learned Board of Nominees, Rajkot (at ANNEXUREH) as well as dated 29.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Revision Application No. 243 of 2009 (at ANNEXUREI)" 3. From the relief prayed for by the petitioner and from the averments in the petition it emerges that the petitioner has taken out present petition at interlocutory stage of the proceedings related to Lavad Case No. 371/2009. 3.1 In present petition, the petitioner has challenged an interim order passed by Board of Nominees (Below Exh-4) at interlocutory stage in Lavad Case No. 371/09. 4. In light of the facts of present case, the petition deserves to be disposed of at this stage on limited ground and without entering into the petitioner's grievance and/or contention with regard to impugned interim order passed by Board of Nominees below Exh4 in Lavad Case No. 371/2009. 5. The first ground in light of which the petition does not deserve to be entertained and is required to be disposed of is that this Court would, ordinarily, not entertain a petition at interlocutory stage i.e. during the pendency of the proceedings before the Board of Nominees, that too against the interim order. 6. The second reason in light of which the petition does not deserves to be entertained is that the said interim order was carried by present petitioner before learned Tribunal in revision application No. 243/2009. 6. The second reason in light of which the petition does not deserves to be entertained is that the said interim order was carried by present petitioner before learned Tribunal in revision application No. 243/2009. 6.1 The said revision application filed by present petitioner also came to be rejected and the interim order passed by Board of Nominees below Exh4 in Lavad Case No. 371/2009 which came to be confirmed by learned Tribunal vide order dated 29.12.2010 in Revision Application No. 243/2009. 6.2 Thus, against two concurrent orders, passed with regard to interim relief, the petition does not deserves to be entertained. 7. Third reason for not accepting the petition against interim order is that both Courts have recorded concurrent prima facie conclusions with reference to factual backdrop. 8. Another reason in light of which the relief prayed for by the petitioner does not deserve to be granted is that the impugned order granting interim relief (i.e. order dated 24.11.2009) passed below Exh-4 by Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No. 371/2009 has remained in operation for almost 9 years. 8.1 The order which has remained in force for almost 9 years and which is confirmed by the learned Tribunal in revision application, does not deserves to be disturbed at this stage. 9. Until now, during past 9 years this Court has not granted any interim relief against the implementation and operation of the impugned interlocutory order/ interim order. The said interim order has uninterruptedly remained in operation for past 9 years and this Court did not grant interim relief against said order passed by Board of Nominees. 10. After 9 years there is no basis to now stay operation of said order. Instead the petition can be disposed of at this stage with appropriate direction to the concerned Board of Nominees to expedite the hearing of the suit and to decide and dispose of the suit finally, as expeditiously as possible. 11. Therefore, following order is passed having regard to above facts and circumstances: (a) For reasons mentioned above, the order dated 24.11.2009 passed below Exh4 by Board of Nominees in Lavad Case No. 371/2009, which is confirmed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 29.12.2010 in Revision Application No. 243/2009 is not disturbed in light of the above mentioned limited facts and circumstances. (b) Further both Courts i.e. Board of Nominees as well as learned Tribunal have recorded prima-facie findings. Therefore, the petition is not entertained. The order dated 24.11.2009 passed below Exh-4 by Board of Nominees is not disturbed. (c) The Board of Nominees shall endeavour to expedite the suit proceedings and the Board of Nominees shall make all efforts to complete the suit proceedings and decide the Lavad Suit No. 371/2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 9 months. (d) It is clarified that in light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the Court has not entered into the merits of the case setup by the petitioner or the defence setup by the respondent no.1 society and the Court has not decided rival contentions on merits. Therefore, the Board of Nominees shall decide the lavad suit independently, on its own merits and on the basis of evidence which may be placed on record by both sides and without being influenced by the interim order passed below Exh4 and/or by the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by learned Tribunal in Revision Application No. 243/2009 and/or by the fact that the Court has disposed of present petition at this stage. With the aforesaid clarification and directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.