1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5765 OF 2007 Bhandari Coop.Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Kishore Shivram Muskar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Q.M.Ashfaq i/b. Legaleye Associates for petitioner Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd January 2008 P.C. . The petitioner bank is aggrieved by an order passed by the Maharashtra State Coop.Appellate Court dismissing appeal preferred 2 by it. 2. Each of the matters involving a dispute by the bank against the respective opponents for recovery of the loan amount. It appears that the borrower in each of these matters came to be served. The opponent borrower did not appear. It was directed that the dispute will proceed ex parte. 3. The dispute has been dismissed even though, the opponent did not come forward and raise any defence principally on the ground that the bank applied for leading evidence and during the course of the same, it found that the original documents could not be traced. It applied for leading secondary evidence, which permission came to be granted. However, on the date and time fixed for leading evidence, the bank could not make arrangements for its representation. The Junior Advocate appearing 3 for the bank was unable to proceed with the matter. In such circumstances, the case is that the matter proceeded and ultimately culminated in dismissal. In other words, the bank carried the matter in appeal and even the appeal has been dismissed. 4. All that has happened during the course of proceedings before the trial court is that the secondary evidence in the form of documents was tendered. In other words, documents were tendered but the contents of the same could not be proved. The Junior Advocate filed Purshis closing evidence. Merely because documents were not placed on record, it is not as if the contents are proved and that is the view of the trial court. All this in the absence of the opponent or any defence to the claim of petitioner bank. All that was expected from the lower appellate court was sufficient opportunity to the bank to prove its claim. Whatever may be 4 its stand in the lower appellate court or that the plea raised that the Junior Advocate filed purshis without any objections being raised for the first time, still in the peculiar facts of the present case, interest of justice warrant that order of the trial court be set aside and dispute be restored to file. The bank is not expecting that it should be permitted to proceed ex parte. The result that has really prejudiced them is dismissal of the suit. They do not contest that after the matter is restored to the file of trial court, it must proceed in accordance with law. This reasonable request should have been granted. Non granting the same has resulted in filing of seven petitions in this Court in seven disputes. 5. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside. Dispute applications are restored to the file of concerned Coop.Court for being dealt with on merits and in accordance with law. 5 However, it is clarified that upon restoration of the dispute application in each one of them, fresh summons would be served upon the opponents calling upon them to appear before the trial court on the date and time fixed therein and after proof of receipt of such summons is produced to the satisfaction of the Coop.Court, it shall endeavour and dispose of the dispute application as expeditiously as possible. Petition allowed with no orders as to costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)