spb/- 1 cra394-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2010 Dr. Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners. Vs. Smt. Urmila Gopalkrishna Latkar & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Sameer Tambekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Sagar Mane i/by N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Thakordas & Madgavkar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 01st DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 The Revision Application is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, rejecting the revision applicants’ prayer for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable for lack of notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act. 2 The respondent had issued a notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. However, in the said notice he had mentioned the suit flat number as flat No.S-1 while the correct flat spb/- 2 cra394-10.sxw number was G-1. In the plaint, the respondents have correctly mentioned Flat No.G-1. The learned counsel for the revision applicants submits that since in the notice an erroneous flat number was mentioned, the notice was not legal and valid and the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper notice. 3 In my view, a typographical or clerical error in writing the flat number in the notice would not vitiate the notice. The applicant is a bank which was aware of the correct flat number to which notice relates. Notice was sent to the Bank as well as Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Despite the Bank knowing the clerical /typographical error in the flat number written in the notice, it did not respond to the notice and, therefore, the revision applicants cannot take advantage of the clerical /typographical error in the notice. The object of section 164 of the Act, in my view, has been sufficiently complied. The trial court has not committed any error in holding that the suit was not vitiated on account of typographical/clerical error in the notice. 4 The Revision Application is rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]