-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2910 OF 2009 Swami Samarth Sahakari Bank Ltd. Alalkot & Anr.. ..Petitioners. Versus M/s. Yedur Food & Breverage Industries. ..Respondent. Mr. S. S. Shah for the petitioners. Mr. Girish S. Godbole alongwith Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for the Respondent. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 31, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. S. S. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Girish S. Godbole, learned counsel for the Respondent. The respondent filed dispute before the Co­operative Court seeking declaration that the liability under the original loan account is duly satisfied and the petitioner – bank is not entitled to recover the said loan pursuant to the decision dated 17th March 2005 or otherwise. In this dispute the respondent took out an application for temporary injunction restraining the bank from recovering the amount of loan. The application was rejected and the respondent approached the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court by the order impugned in this petition granted temporary injunction as claimed by the respondent. The appellate Court also directed the trial Court to dispose of the dispute within -: 2 :- the period of four months from the date of order. 2. It is the case of the petitioner bank that recovery certificate under section 101 of the Co­operative Societies Act cannot be challenged by filing dispute under section 91 of the said Act. On the contrary it is the submission of the respondent that the loan account was settled in One Time Settlement Scheme and therefore the petitioner­bank is not entitled to recover anything and disputed the maintainability of dispute. 3. On behalf of the respondent, one Manik Revansidh Yedur has filed an affidavit assuring and undertaking that he shall not sell or alienate his property bearing CTS No. 9705/13­A situated at Raviwar Peth, Solapur untill final disposal of Dispute No. 534 of 2006 which is subjudice before the District Co­operative Court, Solapur. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the respondent, on the instructions of his client, submitted that the said property is free from all encumbrances. 4. I find that above affidavit protects petitioner’s interest sufficiently. In that view of the matter, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. In the circumstances, the interest of justice will be sub­served by directing the trial Court to dispose of the Respondent’s dispute as expeditiously as possible. The petition is therefore disposed of by passing following order. ­: O R D E R :­ (1) The undertaking given by Mr. Manick Revansidh Yedur on 2nd December 2009 is accepted. -: 3 :- (2) The Co­operative Court, Solapur shall hear and dispose of the Respondent’s dispute, being Dispute No. 534 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt an authenticated copy of this order. (3) With these directions, Writ petition is disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)