1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1601/2010. Rajendra Kaduji Raut -: VERSUS :- The Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies and others. With WRIT PETITION No. 1605/2010. Ravindra Eknath Chopde -: VERSUS :- The Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies and others. with WRIT PETITION No. 1606/2010. Shrikrushna Purushottam Sambare -: VERSUS :- The Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2010. Heard Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 in respective petitions. Other respondents have chosen not to appear, though they are served. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel contends that on 16.06.2009 the petitioner appeared before respondent no.1, but he did not accept the amount and recording to that effect is incorrect. He further contends that no enquiry was conducted and format supplied by Bank was itself used and according to him that format also contained reasons. Thus, respondent no.1 has not applied its mind independently. He 2 further fairly points out that as time limit had expired, the petitioner did not file Revision under Section 154 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Shri Sonare, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 states that alternative and equally effacious remedy is available and it has not been exhausted. It is further contended that the form has been filled in, after the petitioner appeared on 16.06.2009 and accepted the amount. According to him in view of that acceptance/ admission, the contention that there is no application of mind, is misconceived. Perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner on 16.06.2009 (in Writ Petition No. 1601 and 1606 of 2010) and 07.07.2009 (in Writ Petition No.1605/2010), shows that he only disputed the interest as charged. According to him that interest has been charged at exorbitant rate and he prayed for its reduction, but then what should be the rate of interest and why it is exorbitant or then what was the contractual rate of interest, are the facts not disclosed by him. Merely by filing such reply petitioner cannot state that he has disputed the amount. In view of this position, it is apparent that respondent no.1 has rightly found that petitioner has accepted claim of Bank and has proceeded to issue R.R.C. Needless to mention that if petitioner has paid any amount 3 after issuance of R.R.C., Bank/Assistant Registrar, will take the same into account while proceeding further. I, therefore, do not find any case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, no costs. JUDGE Rgd.