1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3076 OF 2008. Shamim B. Shaikh Husain Vs. Divisional Jt. Registrar of Cooperative Society Amravati & Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S. P. Palshikar Adv. for petitioner. Shri R. L. Khapre Adv. for respondent-2. CORAM: J. H. BHATIA, J. DATED: 6 FEBRUARY, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) from respondent No.4 on the request of respondent No. 2. Recovery of certificate of Rs. 13,04,061/- was issued by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies on 27.12.2007. Petitioner contended that recovery certificate was issued without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because according to the petitioner she had already paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, the revision application came to be rejected by the respondent No.1 Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies by order 2 dated 07.07.08 only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit 50% of the amount out of the recoverable amount. That order is challenged in the present petition. On 14.07.2008 this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and that amount is actually deposited. 2. Shri Khapre contends that unless 50% amount is actually deposited, Divisional Joint Registrar cannot hear the applicant in view of the mandate of law. However, in my considered opinion it will not be necessary to remand the matter to the Divisional Joint Registrar because the revision application is not heard on merits of the case but only on the ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing by the Assistant Joint Registrar while passing the order. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Registrar had not given the due opportunity of hearing while passing the order about recovery certificate and amount shown therein is not correct. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- before this Court and according to the petitioner amount of Rs. 3 5,00,000/- was already paid, in my opinion the ends of justice will meet if the petition is disposed of with following direction: 4. The order passed by the Assistant Registrar issuing recovery certificate is set aside. The Assistant Registrar, Buldhana, shall hear the parties afresh and pass an appropriate order on the application of the respondent No.2 for recovery certificate. 5. The parties shall appear before the Assistant Registrar on 16.02.2009. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to act on authenticated copy of the order. JUDGE svk