JUDGMENT M.S.KARNIK, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Co-operative Society is before this Court in a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. 3. By an order dated 21.04.2021 this Court had issued notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner filed affidavit of service on 09.07.2021 stating that the Respondent No.1 is served. This was pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by this Court where the statement of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner was recorded that the Respondent No.1 is already served and he would like to place on record the affidavit of service. Accordingly, the matter was kept for further consideration. Despite service none appears for Respondent No.1. 4. Briefly stated it is the Petitioner's case that the building of the Co-operative Society is in a dilapidated condition and the notice to that effect was already issued by the Corporation. My attention is invited to the reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 before the Co-operative Court. At paragraph 12 it is averred by the Respondent No.1 that he has no objection for redevelopment of the said Society but the only objection of the Respondent No.1 is that the developer was appointed and proposed flat was allotted without Respondent No.1'ss consent. The objection is to the appointment of the developer without the consent of Respondent No.1. The resolution is passed by the Society by a majority. This resolution is not under challenge by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has even not challenged the redevelopment or proposed allotment of the flat. 5. The Petitioner has filed the dispute in the Co-operative Court against the Respondent No.1 to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of Flat No.24 and to restrain the Respondent No.1 from entering into the property of the disputant-Society and consequential reliefs. 6. Along with the application for temporary ad-interim injunction at Exhibit 5, the disputant filed an application for appointment of a Court Receiver at Exhibit 7 under Order 40, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Petitioner's prayed that during the pendency of the dispute, the Court Receiver be appointed for the said flat and take possession of the said flat. It is prayed that Court Receiver should hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat to the disputant-Society. The Petitioner's prayed that during the pendency of the dispute, the Court Receiver be appointed for the said flat and take possession of the said flat. It is prayed that Court Receiver should hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat to the disputant-Society. 7. The Co-operative Court passed an order below Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7 and for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 11.12.2020 appointed the Court Receiver to take possession of the Respondent No.1'ss flat. 8. The Respondent No.1 challenged the order passed by the Co-operative Court appointing the Court Receiver before the Co-operative Appellate Court. By the impugned order the order passed by the Co-operative Court is set aside. The Co-operative Appellate Court was of the opinion that the Co-operative Court has no jurisdiction to appoint the Court Receiver. Further it held that in the Exhibit 5 application no relief for handing over possession is prayed for and therefore the Co-operative Court's order deserves to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and the AGP. 10. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Co-operative Court and also the pleadings and the documents in support. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Mahabir Nuniwal Vs. Neptune Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai and another; 2009 4 MhLJ 304 to contend that the Co-operative Court would be justified in appointing the Court Receiver in an appropriate case where sufficient case is made out. Learned counsel submits that order of the Co-operative Court is explicit and in the facts of the present case there is nothing wrong with the view taken by the Co-operative Court appointing the Court Receiver. 11. It is my prima facie view that in the facts of the present case, the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Co-operative Court. Even the Respondent No.1 was not opposed to the redevelopment of the Society but his objection was to the appointment of developer without his consent. No proceedings are initiated by the Respondent No.1 challenging the appointment of the developer or the resolution of the Society. It is a matter of record that out of the 40 occupants of the Society, 38 have vacated pursuant to the resolution passed by the Society. No proceedings are initiated by the Respondent No.1 challenging the appointment of the developer or the resolution of the Society. It is a matter of record that out of the 40 occupants of the Society, 38 have vacated pursuant to the resolution passed by the Society. Even the Respondent No.1 has not opposed redevelopment. I am further informed that the Respondent No.1 is not residing in the said flat. The building in question has been declared to be dilapidated by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. 12. The Co-operative Court has after recording the reasons allowed the application Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7. In Exhibit 7 a prayer is made for appointment of a Court Receiver and for handing over the possession of the flat to the Court Receiver. Merely because there is no prayer in the Exhibit 5 application will not preclude the trial Court from passing appropriate orders, if a specific prayer for handing over possession and appointing the Court Receiver is made in the application Exhibit 7 which was very much before Co-operative Court for consideration. There is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.1. For the reasons mentioned above, it is necessary in the interest of justice to stay the effect, execution and operation of the order passed by the Appellate Court. Arguable questions are raised. Hence, Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 waives service of Rule. 13. In the meantime, there shall be an ad-interim in terms of prayer clause (e).