1 ca9595.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9595 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10885 OF 2010 [ Shri. Sanjay s/o Shankar More vs. The Asstt. Registrar, Co.op. Societies, Shahada Dist. Nandurbar & Ors. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.U. Choudhari., Advocate for applicant. Mr. Amit Savale, Advocate for Resp.No.3. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This Civil Application is filed for restoration of the Writ Petition No. 10885 of 2010. 2. From reading of the contents of the application, no sufficient cause has been disclosed to restore the petition. 2 ca9595.11 3. This Court was constrained to observe in the order dated 28-02-2011 in Writ Petition No. 10885 of 2010 that, even on second call, none for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. Apart from this, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that, total amount of Rs.2,74,000/- was borrowed by the applicant/petitioner. However, from perusal of the order dated 02-12-2010 in Writ Petition No. 10885 of 2010, it appears that, incorrect statement was made by the Counsel for the petitioner which reads as under : "Mr. S.U. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only Rs. 25,000/- were borrowed from respondent No. 3 Society. The Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Shahada who is respondent No.1 herein has granted 3 ca9595.11 recovery certificate for Rs.4,07,725/- in favour of respondent No.3." 5. Relying on such statement, this Court was inclined to issue notice to the respondents and also interim relief was granted. 6. Upon hearing Counsel for respondent No.3 and upon perusal of statement placed on record by the Counsel for respondent No.3, in my opinion, the statement made by the petitioner through Counsel to this Court that, only he has borrowed Rs.25,000/- was wrong and misleading statement. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence, Civil Application for restoration of the Writ Petition NO. 10885 of 2010 is rejected. . It is also relevant to mention that, the petitioner has remedy under Section 154 4 ca9595.11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for filing the revision. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11