1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- -- "It is, therefore, prayed in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings from the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively and may be pleased to declare the impugned order dated 30-8-1993 passed by the respondent No,2 as without jurisdiction, illegal, void, ab inito and of no legal effect.
(ii) That this Hon'able Court may be pleased to declare the Award date 8-4-1993, passed by the respondent No,3 as without jurisdiction illegal, void and without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(iii) -That be declare that the judgment and decree dated 25-2-1980 passed by this Hon'able Court is not liable to be set aside, revoked/recalled in any arbitration proceedings and that it is binding on all the respondents.
(iv) Be declare a prohibitory writ restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the rights of the petitioners in connection with the land mentioned in para. 1 of the petition.
(v) Any other or additional relief as this Hon'able Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(vi) Costs of the proceedings."
2. ' The petitioner has mainly contended that he, not being member of the Cooperative Society, could not be joined as party to the arbitration proceedings held before the respondent No,3 culminating in the award passed by him on 8-4-1993.
3. ' The facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that one-Haji Ahmedullah, the predecessor of present respondent No,16 had filed a suit being Suit No,530 of 1978 against the original owners of the land in dispute on the basis of a Purchase Agreement. This suit is said to have been decreed in favour of said Haji Ahmedullah and ultimately the Nazir of this Court was directed to execute sale- deed in favour of the plaintiff in that suit. The said Haji Ahmedullah is said to have expired and the present respondent No,16 is his successor-in-interest. Present petitioners claimed to have purchased the disputed land and by this petition they seek the enforcement of decree passed in Suit No,530 of 1978 in favour of deceased Haji Ahmedullah (now his successor is respondent No,16) through whom the petitioners claim their right. In the meanwhile, two other suits being Suits Nos.214 and 215 of 1988 were filed before this Court which are pending. Also M/s. Sachal Sarmast Cooperative Housing Society and 7 others filed a suit being Suit No,321 of 1987 against the said deceased Haji Ahmedullah in this Court. In the meanwhile the matter was brought before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies who referred the same for arbitration under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act. In this arbitration matter the present petitioners were also joined as parties by a consent order passed in Suit No,215 of 1988 on 15-11-1992. The respondent No,3 then proceeded with the arbitration matter and passed the award as aforesaid. The petitioners being aggrieved have preferred this petition.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and as stated above he has challenged the proceedings before the Arbitrator solely on the ground that petitioners not being the members of the Cooperative Society, no proceedings could be taken by the Arbitrator against them. He has referred to section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act and also placed.Reliance on the case of Karashiddayya Shiddayya Bennur v. Shree Gajanan Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. And another (AIR
(30) 1943 Bom. 288). In the above cited case of Bombay High Court it has been held that where an authority was lacking in inherent jurisdiction, submission of the parties to jurisdiction of the said authority would not cure the defect. In the same case it was also held that award passed against the persons who were not members of the Society is a nullity. However, the position in the present case is a little different. In the present case the Arbitrator has referred to deposition of said Haji Ahmedullah recorded in Suit No,321 of 1987 before this Court wherein he has stated as under: "I floated a Cooperative Society in the name of Darbar Cooperative Society. The above name was changed into Sachal Sarmast Cooperative Society. We have prepared 800 plots from the suit land and allotted to the various members. The society has 580 members to whom the land was allotted at the time of the filing of the suit."
5. ' This shows that the deceased had floated the Cooperative Society pertaining to the land in dispute and thus the land would be vested in the said Society. It is also conceded by the learned counsel that the arbitration proceedings could lie against deceased Haji Ahmedullah. The present petitioners claim their right in the said land through the said deceased Haji Ahmedullah. The provisions of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act reads as under: "54. Arbitration.---If any dispute touching the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society arises---
(a) between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past membe, or
(b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or
(c) between the society or its committee, and past or present member of the society, or
(d) .................................................................................................
(e) ..
6. Clause (a) above would clearly show that any person claiming through a member or past member of the Society can be joined as party to the arbitration proceedings. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel on the face of it is devoid of any force. We may also observe that in the present case the petitioners were joined as party at their own consent vide orders passed by this Court which order cannot be undone in the Constitutional petition as no writ could issue against the orders passed by the Judge of the High Court. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the present petition, which is 'accordingly dismissed along with misapplication.