1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2006 (DECIDED) (Vinodkumar Murlidharrao Saraf .v. The Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh (Bank) Maryadit and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P.R. Puri, Advocate for the appellant/petitioner. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 21ST JULY, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2006 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petition was directed against the judgment and order passed by the Co-operative Court, Nagpur dated 01.02.2003 and by the Cooperative Appellate Court dated 15.09.2005 holding that the respondent/bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,94,276.01 Ps. from the present appellant, the principal debtors and the other guarantor. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge to appreciate contentions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant :- “... 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 and the Guarantors, and was entitled to recover the sum from them. Both the Courts held that the evidence tendered by the 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 2 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 present petitioner was a guarantor and was jointly and severally liable along with the principal debtors and 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. 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.” Learned Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, invited our attention to a photocopy of the application dated 15.04.1999 filed by respondent No.4 before the Cooperative Court, Nagpur to contend that the documents mentioned therein and demanded by respondent No.4 were not supplied by the bank and in view thereof respondent No.4 could not file written statement and defend himself before the Cooperative Court. There is nothing on record to show that despite the order passed on the application dated 15.04.1999 the documents, as demanded by the appellant, were not supplied to him. That apart, it is pertinent to note that the case of the appellant before the trial Court was that he never stood as guarantor for the loan advanced to the borrower and that never signed any documents. If that was his case, the question would arise as to why was he 3 waiting for the documents for taking such stand in the written statement. He could have filed written statement stating that he never stood guarantor as alleged and he never signed any document for standing guarantor to the borrower. Moreover, from perusal of the order passed by the Cooperative Court, it is clear that since the appellant and other contesting respondents before the Cooperative Court did not file written statement despite several opportunities, the Cooperative Court had passed `No WS' order and then proceeded to hear the dispute. No application for setting aside `No WS' order was filed by the appellant. That apart, there is no dispute that in the course of hearing before the Cooperative Court all the documents relied upon by the bank were produced by them, and based on that, the Cooperative Court passed the impugned order. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the defence taken by the appellant is after thought. We do not find any ground worth considering to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.