jpc 1 wp3125-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3125 OF 2011 Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Mohamad Hanif Faizlur Rahiman Rangrej and others ... Respondents Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for the petitioner for the respondent CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 4th January, 2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by which order the Revisional Authority has granted ad interim stay to the order dated 30th of October, 2009. The said order is directed to be continued till the next date of hearing of the Revision Application. 3. The petitioner herein has stood as guarantor for the loan taken by respondent no.2 herein. In respect of the said loan, on default being committed by Respondent no.2, proceedings were initiated under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperatives Societies Act which jpc 2 wp3125-11.sxw culminated in the Recovery Certificate dated 12th August, 2006 for an amount of Rs.53,755.05 ps. The said Recovery Certificate was sought to be executed by having recourse to the provisions as contained in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules and especially Rule 107 thereof. The salary and the account of the Respondent No. 1 herein came to be attached. This resulted in the respondent no.1 invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the authorities under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The said provision, in terms of sub section 2A, contemplates a pre deposit to be made by the applicant. However, on the ground that what was being challenged is the consequential action of attachment the said pre deposit was not made and therefore an issue was raised before the Revisional Authority as regards the maintainability of the Revision Application in view of the fact that the pre deposit was not made by the applicant. The said issue was dealt with by the Revisional Authority and by recording a finding that since the consequential action is under challenge in the revision, there was no necessity to make the pre deposit. The Revisional Authority, resultantly held that the Revision Application was maintainable without the said pre deposit. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the said finding of the Revisional Authority is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 2004 Bom 108 in the matter of the Greater Bombay jpc 3 wp3125-11.sxw Cooperative.. Vs. Shri Dhillon P. Shah. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 Shri Utgikar does not dispute the said position in law. However, faced with the situation where the maintainability of the revision on account of non compliance with Section 154(2A) is in question. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 would make the pre deposit as would be directed by this Court. In the light of the said statement made on behalf of the respondent no.1, the impugned order would have to be quashed and set aside and the Revision Application would have to be heard de novo. Hence, the following directions. i. The attachment of the account of the respondent no.1 levied vide order dated 30th October, 2009 is set aside and the respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 27,500/- and make the pre deposit within a period of two weeks form date. Rest of the amount will not be withdrawn by the respondent no.1 till he makes the pre-deposit of the amount of Rs.27,500/- ii. On such pre deposit being made, the Revisional Authority would de novo hear the said Revision Application and would also consider the aspect as to whether the salary and the account of the respondent no.1 is to be attached. iii. If the respondent no.1 does not make the pre deposit as jpc 4 wp3125-11.sxw directed by clause(i) of the instant order, the order dated 30th October, 2009 would then become operative and the above petition would then be deemed to be dismissed. iv. The revision application to be heard and decided within a period of three months from the first appearance of the parties. v. The contentions of the parties are explicitly kept open for being urged before the Revisional Authority. 5. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their own costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)