1 C.R.A.No.192/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2011 Babu Maroti Nagergoje, Age 53 years, Occu.Service, /o Mukundraj Colony, Ambajogai, District Beed .. Petitioner (Orig.Respondent No.1) Versus 1. M.S.E.B. Staff Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Osmanabad, through its authorized person (2) S.S.Thalkari, |Resp.Nos.2 & 3 Age major, Occu.Service |deleted as per Court’s C/o MSEB Vitran Co.Vibhag, Kaij, |leave dated 29.9.2011 District Beed | | (3) S.S.Waghmare, | Age Major, Occu.Service, | C/o MSEB Vitaran Vibhag, | Ambajogai, Uran Unit, Ambajogai .. Respondents Mr Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.B.Ghute, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondents 2 and 3 deleted as per Court’s leave dated 29.9.2011 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18th November, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 C.R.A.No.192/2011 3. The revision applicant questions the propriety and legality of the order recorded by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, Nanded dated 1.9.2009, confirmed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad dated 7.7.2011. 4. The case of respondent-credit society was, the petitioner Babu being an employee in M.S.E.B. and a member of the credit society had availed loan to meet his financial exigencies. Fresh loan was also entertained to him on 15.5.1999 by liquidating earlier arrears of Rs. 29,010/-, by releasing a loan of Rs.80,000/- under loan document executed by the petitioner. The society filed dispute for an amount of Rs.1,73,028/- claiming interest at the rate of 17% per annum. The claim was allowed as stated earlier. 5. Mr Bhavthankar, learned Counsel for the revision applicant Babu has questioned the propriety of both the orders, on the ground that the respondent-society did not explain by way of pleading as to how it has appropriated the amount prior to 15.5.1999 and how the society could release by cheque No.188341 an amount of Rs.42,890/-, though the society claims to have released an amount of Rs.80,000/-. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the erasers effected in the demand promissory note, the agreement, the receipt and the annexures. According to him the documents are even not proved, as could be seen in the affidavit of the representation of society. He reiterated, the documents are forged, fabricated and figures are changed to the 3 C.R.A.No.192/2011 detriment of the revision applicant Babu. He insisted, the orders under challenge need to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-society invited my attention to the evidence to inform that the documents, to which reference is given or which the society relied on are duly proved, they are accordingly exhibited. Its reference could be seen in the affidavit-in- chief. Learned Counsel submits, the account statement explains appropriation of the amount of Rs.80,000/- which was sanctioned on 15.5.1999 in favour of the revision applicant Babu. 7. The scope of revision under Section 115, C.P.C. is indicated in catena of judgments. The finding of facts of the Courts need not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is only in the situation, if informed, that the findings are perverse, the Court may look into it. However, the Court has to evaluate the situation based on the evidence adduced. 8. The analysis of the evidence, which Mr Bhavthankar desires is again rebelling the record. Reading evidence and re-appreciating need not be done as scope is quite limited in the revision. The analysis place a catelogue of events of proof of documents, to which a critisism was wrongly raised by Mr Bhavthankar. The documents are duly proved, as is required under the law. The fabrication, which is referred by the petitioner is not so, as wherever there were erasers, either in 4 C.R.A.No.192/2011 the promissory note or in the agreement or in the supporting documents of the society, it bears signature of the petitioner for such corrections or erasers. There is nothing from the petitioner that it was under duress that he corrected the figures or he did not correct the figures, as appeared in several documents in support of release of the loan. The pass-book to which reference was given from the petitioner’s side, indeed stands to the contention raised by the society about appropriating the loan amount of Rs.80,000/- by firstly crediting earlier balance of Rs.29,010/-, Rs.6,000/- was towards shares, Rs. 2,000/- were invested in fixed deposit and other miscellaneous expenses. The cheque of Rs.42,890/- was covering the figure of the residue, which the petitioner received from the society. On this count the submissions, warrants no interference and findings of both the Courts are in conformity to the documents and does not deflate the legal position. 9. Repeated reference was given by Mr Bhavthankar that there is no specific pleading of adjustment of earlier dues. Indeed, it is so. It was not expected of the society to demonstrate the same as it was a new arrangement of disbursal of loan by securing of earlier loan, which was existed on 15.5.1999. Consequently, want of pleadings or no evidence for adjustment of earlier loan, was not desirable, it will not refute claims of the society. 5 C.R.A.No.192/2011 10. The Courts have decreed the suit with interest at the rate of 17% per annum effective from 31.3.2007. Mr Ghute, learned Counsel for the society, informs that in the year 1999, when the financial facilities were advanced to the petitioner, this was a prevalent lending rate, however, present rate applicable is 11% per annum. He, on instructions informs, this Court can award interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of award dated 11.3.2007. 11. Survey of all the details, the spectrum does not loom to accept the contentions raised by the revision applicant. Consequently, the orders under challenge does not require any interference. However, the interest applicable would be 11% per annum effective from 31.3.2007. 12. On application moved by the petitioner to the respondent- society, within a period of 15 days thereafter, account statement by applying interest at the rate of 11% per annum to be given to the revision applicant. 13. Rule partly made absolute. No order as to costs. Interim relief terminated. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/192.11cra)