1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 482/2006 (Vinodkumar Murlidharrao Saraf VERSUS The Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank) Maryadit, Wardha & 4 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.R. Puri, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Cooperative Court, Nagpur on 01.02.2003 as also that passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court on 15.09.2005 holding that the disputant bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.15,94,276.01 Ps. from the present petitioner, the principal debtors & the other guarantor. On an appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, both the Courts have held that the bank had proved its claim against all the four parties, i.e. the Principal Debtors & the Guarantors, and was entitled to recover the sum from them. Both the Courts held that the evidence tendered by the 2 bank went unchallenged and unrebutted though an opportunity was granted to the other parties to defend the matter. It is necessary to note that in the instant case, the petitioner, who, according to the bank, was a guarantor, had not filed his written statement and had also not tendered any evidence or cross-examined the witnesses of the bank. In such circumstances, both the Courts relied on the evidence tendered by the bank to hold that the the present petitioner was a guarantor and was jointly and severally liable along with the principal debtors & the other guarantors to pay the sum of Rs.15,94,276.01 Ps. to the bank along with interest thereon. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to file his written statement and to tender evidence in this case as all the documents which were asked for by the petitioner were not supplied by the bank to the petitioner and the petitioner was, in these circumstances, not able to file the written statement and tender any evidence in this case, does not find place either in the appeal memo or in the present petition. The submission made by the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings is clearly an after thought and is liable to be rejected. 3 The findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts based on the appreciation of the evidence tendered by the bank. The findings are just and reasonable and call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE