1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3967 OF 2004. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2009. Shri P.K.Anna Patil, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner. Versus M/s Krishna Automotives through its partners : Jayesh B.Shah and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.Nitin R.Bhavar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.L.D.Vakil, advocate for Respondent Nos.1-a to l-b. Mr.G.K.Thigle, advocate for Respondent Nos.1-c, d-d,l-e and 1-f1. Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate for Respondent Nos.1(f1) and f(f2) and 1(g) - absent. ... 2 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 22.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Bank and had filed proceedings U/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, for recovery of the amount which was allegedly due from the Respondents Nos.1 to 3. The partners of the Respondent No.1 are said to be liable as principal borrower and Respondent No.s2 and 3 are said to be liable as guarantors. The application for such certification was rejected by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperatives, Dhule and the findings are concurrently recorded by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik, while deciding the Revision Application No.R-74/2006. 3. Both the authorities held that the petitioner did not produce original record in support of the contention regarding liability arising out of the promissory note and other documents which were executed by the Respondent 3 Nos.1 to 3. It is contention of the petitioner that all the original documents were kept ready and copies thereof were already placed on record. True, there is concurrent finding of both the authorities as regards non-production of the significant documents, yet, it can not be overlooked that the copies of the relevant documents were placed on record at the inception. In "Sau.Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil Vs. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank Ltd.,Sangli and others" 2003 Vol.105 (3) BOM.L.R.893, a Division Bench of this Court held that where certificate U/1 101 of the MCS Act, has attained finality then it can not be challenged U/s 91 of the MCS Act. The only remedy available to the aggrieved party in Revision U/s 154 of the MCS Act. This seems to be the legal position when the certificate is granted and the borrower/guarantor seeks to challenge the same U/s 91 of the MCS Act. It is observed in the given judgment that remedy U/s 101 of the MCS Act is a speedy remedy. And, therefore, I do not think that the petitioner will not be able to seek regular remedy available U/s 91 of the MCS Act, 1960. If such regular remedy is availed 4 then the petitioner would be at liberty to produce the original record and agitate all the contentions which are being raised through this Writ Petition. The remedy U/s 91 through regular process before the Cooperative Court, in my opinion, is not barred and no question of res- judicata may be agitated before the said Court. The petitioner is ready to go before the regular Court as stated by Mr.Dhorde, on instructions. Liberty to seek such regular remedy. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. The Civil Application is also disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp396704