13.CRA.442.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2026 Nirmal Township A Co-operative Housing Society ...Applicant Versus M/s. B. K. Jhala And Associates Thr. Its Partner Kamlesh Bahadursinh Jhala & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil a/w. Shrikant Patil, Rohan Bhandave, Anish Kikle, Akshada Nagrale for the Applicant. Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 14th May, 2026 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune rejecting an application preferred by the Applicant Defendant-Society under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and another order dated 14th May, 2026 passed by the Trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises. 3. So far as the second order dated 14th May, 2026, the Applicant has an efficacious remedy of preferring an Appeal before the District Court as the said AKN 1 ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: 2026.09.05 16:45:08 +0530 13.CRA.442.2026.doc order was passed on an application for a temporary injunction. Even otherwise, a revision is not maintainable against an order granting status quo. 4. In regard to the first order rejecting application for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that since the challenge is to an order granting deemed conveyance under the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and transfer) Act, 1963, the subject matter of the Suit touches the business of the society and therefore without prior notice envisaged under the provisions of Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, the suit could not have been instituted. 5. The Court finds that the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1-promoter was the party-Respondent in the proceedings under section 11 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Society Act, 1960. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority granting deemed conveyance is entitled to institute a suit before the Civil Court. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arunkumar H. Shah HUF vs Avon Arcade Premises Co-operative Society Limited and Ors1. The learned Civil Judge has thus taken a correct view of the matter. There is neither jurisdictional error nor material 1 2025 SCC online SC 828 AKN 2 13.CRA.442.2026.doc irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court so as to warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 6. The Civil Revision Application thus stand dismissed with liberty to the Applicant to assail the order dated 14th May, 2026 passed by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the said property before the appropriate Court. ( N. J. JAMADAR, J. ) AKN 3