IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.33 of 2005 in Writ Petition No.638 of 2003 M/s Rajni Enterprises ..Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Pratap Sampat i/b Mr.Vinod Singh for appellant. Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Appasaheb Desai for respondent nos.3 and 4 CORAM: A.P.SHAH & CORAM: A.P.SHAH & CORAM: A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. 29th March, 2005 29th March, 2005 29th March, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the records including the order of the learned single Judge. 2. We are of the view that this is not a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appellant has got alternate remedy of filing a revision under sec.144 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Even according to the appellant an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- is due to the Bank. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this appeal. Appellant may approach the Revisional Authority if so advised. 3. If a revision is filed within four weeks it shall be entertained without recording an objection of limitation. 4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.