JUDGMENT 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, service on respondent No.3 is dispensed with. 2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that short controversy is involved in the present matter, which can be decided today itself. 3. Therefore, with consent of both the parties, the matter is being finally decided by this Court. 4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Co- operative Tribunal, whereby applications filed by the petitioner dated 05.09.2018 and 31.05.2018 have been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the award dated 20.11.2012, passed by the arbitrator, two appeals have been filed before the Appellate Tribunal i.e. one by Mahalaxmi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd and another by Om Prakash S/o Girija Prasad. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being Official Liquidator moved an application before the Appellate Forum that certain record relating to the erstwhile Society was in possession of the erstwhile Members of the Society and possession of the said record was to be given to the petitioner for defending the case properly before the Appellate Forum. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below while rejecting the applications, filed by the petitioner has observed that the powers conferred under Section 107 CPC and under Order 41 CPC do not Authorize the Court to summon the record and hand it over to the other side. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powers conferred under Section 115 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 includes the power of Civil Court in the Appellate Tribunal and as per sub-section (1)(b) of Section 115, the Appellate Court has enough power to give direction for discovery and production of any document. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction by not giving appropriate direction of production of documents before the Appellate Tribunal and further giving possession of those documents to the petitioner for preparing defence. 10. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction by not giving appropriate direction of production of documents before the Appellate Tribunal and further giving possession of those documents to the petitioner for preparing defence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the dispute is in respect of allotment of a plot No.39 (New No.87) in Mahalaxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and there are two rival claimants for the allotment of said plot by the Society and as such in absence of proper record available with the petitioner, the petitioner would not be able to defend the case in a proper manner. 11. Learned counsel Mr.Lokesh Kumar Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, submitted that the Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court towards applications filed by the petitioner, whereby prayer was made to hand over the documents demanded by the petitioner and further possession was also claimed of the documents, which were mentioned in the applications, filed by the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the prayer sought in the applications by the petitioner, could not have been granted in view of provisions contained in Section 31 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2001. 14. Learned counsel submitted that if the Official Liquidator wants to secure possession of record, there is a proper mechanism provided under Section 31 according to which any person, who is entitled to get possession of record of the Society, has to move proper application before the proper forum i.e. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, within whose jurisdiction the Society was functioning. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner were not maintainable at all before the Court below and as such no illegality has been committed while rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel Mr.Ashish Sharma Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner by way of application before the Appellate Tribunal was required to be accepted by the Tribunal as record of the case was to be produced before the Appellate Forum as well as the Official Liquidator was also entitled for securing possession of record of the Erstwhile Society. 17. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. This Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner on 31.05.2018 makes a prayer before the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner being appointed as Official Liquidator on 27.12.2013 did not have possession of the record from the erstwhile office bearers of Mahalaxmi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited and the entire record was required for disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 19. The application further states that in absence of record, the petitioner was not able to defend himself properly and as such direction was sought that the office bearers of erstwhile Mahalaxmi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited may be directed to produce the record and same should be handed over to the petitioner. 20. This Court on further perusal of subsequent application filed on 05.09.2018, also finds that prayer has been reiterated of handing over the record to the petitioner. 21. The submission raised by the petitioner that the power conferred under Section 115 has not been properly exercised by the court below, careful reading of Section 115 of the Act of 2001 makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the dispute, has power of a Civil Court like trying a suit under CPC and the discovery and production of any documents can be sought by the Appellate Forum. The said power only confines to discovery and production of the document, however, the prayer of handing over record or any document, is not contemplated under Section 115 sub-section (1)(b). 22. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that the court below ought to have exercised its powers by first directing the erstwhile office bearers of the society to produce the record before the Tribunal and then same was to be handed over, this Court is afraid to accept such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. 22. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that the court below ought to have exercised its powers by first directing the erstwhile office bearers of the society to produce the record before the Tribunal and then same was to be handed over, this Court is afraid to accept such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that if any person-Official Liquidator wants possession of record, there is proper mechanism which is provided under Section 31 of the Act of 2001, this Court finds that situation which is contemplated for not producing the record by the erstwhile office bearers/members of the society or if they tamper or destroy the record or any fund of the Society is misappropriated or misplaced, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class has been conferred with such power and after an application being filed, the power of Judicial Magistrate, Authorizes him to even use the Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to get the record and after getting the same, he can hand over the record to the authorized person. 24. This Court finds that if the petitioner wants to secure possession of record, as he alleges that the same is in possession of the erstwhile Office bearers of the Society, then the proper course could have been adopted by him and by filing an application before the Appellate Tribunal to get the possession of the record, was not a proper remedy. 25. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal below on 18.09.2018 and as such the Appellate Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the applications of the petitioner. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submitted that at least liberty may be granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the Competent Authority, this goes without saying that if any litigant/aggrieved party has any grievance, then for redressal of such grievance if remedy is provided under the law, he is always free to avail the same. 27. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.