1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6572 OF 2009 M/s.Steel India Enterprises & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. The Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents. Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar i/by Ashok Purohit & Co. adv. For the Petitioners. Rekha Panchal, adv. For the Respondents. Mr.Jagdish C. Panchal, Officer, Deccan Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. present in person. Mr.Pradeep Chunilal Mehta, petitioner no.2 present in person. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 2nd February , 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Respondent/Co-operative Bank had filed a dispute claiming certain amount from the petitioners on the ground that in 1982 overdraft facility was granted with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The petitioners had failed to make the payment. The claim of the respondent/bank was denied in toto by the petitioners. The Co-operative Court dismissed the dispute holding that bank had failed to prove that loan/overdraft facility was sanctioned and that the amount was disbursed to the petitioners. 2 Respondent/Bank preferred Appeal No.88 of 2008, which was allowed and claim was decreed. On perusal of the judgments of the both the Courts below, it appears that on behalf of the respondent/bank, only one witness was examined, who was working as Accounts Manager but he admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the transaction or about execution of documents. The person, who was witness to the transaction and in whose presence, all the relevant documents were allegedly executed by the petitioners was not examined. No evidence was led to prove filing of the application by the petitioners for loan, to prove execution of documents and to prove disbursement of the loan. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, it will be difficult to sustain the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. However, taking into consideration the fact that huge amount is claimed by the respondent/bank, which is a co-operative bank, the learned counsel for both the parties concedes that while the judgment of both the Courts below may be set aside, the dispute may be remanded back to the Co- operative Court with an opportunity to the bank as well as petitioners/opponents to lead the evidence in support of their contentions. 3 3 For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments in Appeal No.88 of 2008 as well as in Dispute No.CC-II/574/1989 are hereby set aside. The dispute bearing no.CC- II/574/1989 is hereby remanded back to the Co-operative Court No.2, Bombay with an opportunity to the disputants/respondents to lead the necessary evidence in respect of its claim. In that case, the opponents/petitioners will also have the right to lead the evidence in their defence. Parties shall appear before the Co-operative Court No.2 on 2nd March, 2010. Trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose off the dispute finally preferably within four months from the date of appearance of the parties. 4 Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)