:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2005 Suraj Shamrao Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Sangli Pathbandhare Mandalantargat Pagardar Karmacharyanchi Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Sangli & anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Borkar for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 08, 2006. Date : June 08, 2006. Date : June 08, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order dated 12/8/2004 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Cooperative Appellate Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Appeal No.172 of 1999. 2. The petitioner’s father, who was respondent no.1 in the appeal, was employed as the Secretary of the Appellant-Credit Society and he was charged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.13,78,000/-. The society filed a dispute for recovery of the said :2: amount on the basis of the audit report and in the said dispute, the application at Exh.B came to be allowed by the Cooperative Court by its order dated 10/4/1998 thereby directing attachment of various properties of the family including the agricultural land located in Gat No.105. The petitioner made an application for being impleaded as Opponent No.2 before the Cooperative Court before this order was passed on Exh.B. However, this order passed below Exh.B came to be vacated on 6/7/1999 and, therefore, the Disputant filed Appeal No.172 of 1999. 3. The Appellate Court has recorded that the land located in Gat No.105 was purchased in March 1995 and though the 7 x 12 extract of the said land showed the ownership of the present petitioner, it was noted that the petitioner was only of 18 years when the land was purchased. It was also noted that there were two payment receipts dated 3/1/1995 in the name of the present petitioner having sold certain goods worth Rs.16,000/- and Rs.13,000/- approximately and thereby making a total disbursement of Rs.29,000/- by the Secretary of the society. The Lower Appellate Court, :3: therefore, recorded a prima facie finding that the agricultural land in Gat No.105 was purchased by the money disbursed by the present petitioner’s father while he was Secretary of the Disputant - Society and the petitioner did not have any independent income. Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the petitioner was working on daily wages. If he was working on daily wages, there was no reason that the payment receipts were drawn in favour of the petitioner for disbursement of an amount of Rs.29,000/-. In any case these are prima facie observations made by the courts below and all the issues will have to be decided by leading evidence before the Cooperative Court and in the meanwhile the order of attachment passed by the Lower Appellate Court by setting aside the order dated 6/7/1999 passed by the Cooperative Court does not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The petition is hereby rejected summarily. Trial of the Dispute is hereby expedited. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)