(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10524 OF 2010 Akole Taluka Shikshak Ketar Karmachari Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Akole, Taluka : Akole, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Manager. .. Petitioner. versus Sandeep Vithalrao Deshmukh, Age : Major, Occupation : Private Service, R/o. Dhandharphal (Bk.), Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate, for respondent no.1. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The Cooperative Court, as also, Cooperative Appellate Court has concurrently dismissed the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, filed by the petitioner / Society, for recovery of alleged loan amount. 2. Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Cooperative Court specifically found that it has jurisdiction, while the Cooperative Appellate Court has found that the Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction. The issue of membership was not framed by the Cooperative Court but it has answered it against the Society by holding that borrower was not the member. The Appellate Court has upheld that finding. He further states that relevant loan documents could not be exhibited. According to him, those documents came to be filed after cross examination of the witness of the petitioner / Society. 3. Mr. P.B. Shirsath, learned Counsel appearing for (3) respondent no.1, states that both the courts have followed proper procedure and necessary opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter findings are recorded. 4. The findings are findings of fact reached concurrently. Even if it is presumed that the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction and the respondent no.1 happens to be member of the petitioner / Society, still as loan documents are not proved in accordance with law, the dispute could not have been decreed. 5. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Needless to mention, that the petitioner is at liberty to take such steps as are open to it in law. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10524