1 Wp7297.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7297 OF 2010 Shri Vasantrao Dattatraya Jadhav .. Petitioner v Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioner. Shri Suresh Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. 2. An application for grant of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ) was made by the 3rd Respondent-Bank. In the said application, the Petitioner is the opponent and recovery certificate is sought against the Petitioner. An application was made by the Petitioner in the pending application under Section 101 of the said Act praying that the 4th Respondent be impleaded as party on the ground that the 4th Respondent is the beneficiary of the loan and an undertaking was given by the 4th Respondent to repay the loan. By the impugned order, the said 2 Wp7297.10 application has been rejected. A revision application filed against the said order has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon several decisions of this Court for contending that the 4th Respondent is a necessary party to the proceedings under Section 101 of the said Act. 4. I have considered the submissions. The 3rd Respondent being an applicant in the application for grant of recovery certificate is dominus litis. If a necessary party is not impleaded in the application, the Petitioner can always urge at the time of final hearing of the application that a necessary party has not been impleaded and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. If the Petitioner has any cause of action against the 4th Respondent, it is for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy against the 4th Respondent. The Petitioner cannot compel the 3rd Respondent to implead a third party in the application made by the 3rd Respondent. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)4