1 20.wp8065.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8065 OF 2011 Bassein Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Bhupesh Sawant, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. P.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 16, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 to 7. Respondent No. 3 is a Special Recovery Officer and for the purpose of disposing this Writ Petition his presence is not necessary. 2. It is an admitted position that Recovery Certificates under section 2 20.wp8065.11 101 have attained finality. Respondent No. 4 to 7 have objected to the attachment on the ground that the property is HUF property. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are at liberty to produce all material evidence including oral evidence before the SRO to show that the property is in fact HUF property and is not liable for being attached and sold under the recovery certificate. Such full opportunity will have to be given by the SRO. If, for availing this opportunity, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 who are persons objecting to the attachment want copies of any document, they can apply for such copies before the Petitioner Bank and the Petitioner Bank shall supply such copies by charging requisite fees for photo copying charges etc. 3. It is clarified that Special Recovery Officer shall conduct detailed enquiry and decide the controversy afresh. The Respondent No. 4 to 7 are directed to cooperate in the enquiry and not to seek unnecessary adjournment after the requisite documents are given to them. It is further clarified that observations made in the last paragraph of the impugned order are limited to the order of remand and should not be construed to be a finding on merits of the controversy involved. So also it is also open to the Bank to lead appropriate evidence before the SRO about the claim 3 20.wp8065.11 of the Bank that the flat in question has been validly mortgaged with the Bank. Subject to these clarifications, the Rule is discharged. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)