{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2007 Rashmi Ramesh Kote R/o Near Sainath Vidyalaya, Nandurki Road, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The Kopargaon Taluka Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kopargaon 2. Ramesh Shivaji Kote R/o Near Sainath Vidyalaya, Nandurki Road, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata Dist-Ahmednagar 3. Sunil Sopanrao Warole R/o Near Khandoba Temple Shirdi Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for applicant Mr.Abasaheb D.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 23rd June 2009 PER COURT: 1. By present application, the applicant has challenged {2} the judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed in Appeal No. 229/2009 by the Cooperative Appellate Court thereby confirming the order of the Cooperative Court dated 24.08.2004 passed in Dispute ABN No.995/2001. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The ground on which the present application is filed is that though it is alleged in the dispute filed before the Cooperative Court that the loan was granted to the applicant in capacity as a member of respondent No. 1 Bank, for which respondents No.2 and 3 are the guarantors, yet no such issue is framed either by the Cooperative Court or by Cooperative Appellate Court and therefore, the dispute decided by both the courts below is not covered u/s 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is also tried to be urged that on the basis of signatures of the applicant, obtained on blank papers, which were later on used by respondent No.1 bank to prepare loan and other papers, the dispute came to be filed. 3. Considering these submissions advanced across the bar and the limited scope of the Revisional Court in exercising the powers vested in it and in view of concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below, this Court cannot reappreciate the findings of facts about execution of documents by the applicant and respondents No.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.1. Secondly, on careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is apparently clear that when it is not pleaded by the applicant in the written {3} statement filed before Cooperative Court that she had put her signatures on blank papers and the same are used by respondent No.1 bank to prepare loan and other papers on which basis the dispute was filed then in absence of pleadings of facts if evidence is lead and recorded before the Cooperative Court and was appreciated and considered by the court, it is not to be entertained by this Court. Secondly, the cooperative court, after appreciating the evidence, has recorded finding in negative to the issue as to whether the bank had obtained signatures of the applicant and guarantors on blank forms and thus played fraud on them. 4. Now, only question requires consideration is whether the dispute filed by the respondent No.1 against the applicant and respondents No.2 and 3 covered and governed by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is not under dispute that respondent No.1 is doing business of banking in cooperative sector. Considering the findings recorded in respect of loan advanced by respondent No1, in favour of applicant and respondents No.2 and 3, the fact finding of both the courts below have concluded that the loan was advanced by respondent No.1 in faovur of applicant and respondents No.2 and 3, which became due and hence for recovery of the same, dispute was filed by respondent No.1 in the Cooperative Court against the applicant and respondents No.2 and 3. As respondent No.1 is doing the business of banking and in the course of business it had advanced loan to the applicant, to which respondents No.2 and 3 are the guarantors, then the dispute filed {4} in the cooperative court for recovery of due amount of loan is governed u/s 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act. Now, no question requires for consideration in this application. In the premise, there are no merits in the civil revision application and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. The revision application sans any merit is dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/160-07