1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3651 OF 2008 (Akola Janata Commercial Coop. Bank vs. Sau. Santosh Suresh Maheshwari & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The Cooperative Appellate Court has by impugned order dated 2.4.2008 set aside the judgment and order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Judge, Cooperative Court, Amravati, in MJC No. 31 of 2004 and has also allowed that MJC by declaring that the judgment and order in Dispute No. 448 of 2000 stands quashed to the extent it operates against the present respondent i.e. appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court. The said appellant was defendant No. 1(iii) in Dispute No. 448 of 2000. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that there was no prayer for condonation of delay before the Cooperative Appellate Court and as such impugned proceedings were not legally sustainable. On merits, he points out that evidence 2 looked into by the Cooperative Court while rejecting MJC has not been considered at all by Cooperative Appellate Court. Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, states that the adverse order of Cooperative Court was challenged and in the said challenge it was specifically pleaded that present respondent No.1 had no knowledge of the judgment of Cooperative Court. He states that the present respondent No.1 had urged that her advocate never communicated further progress of the matter before the Cooperative Court and this fact was accepted by the Cooperative Appellate Court. He argues that this fact and plea is overlooked by the Cooperative Court while passing order dated 26.11.2007 rejecting MJC of present respondent No.1. Thus, after hearing both sides, I find that part of the evidence which has been looked into by the Cooperative Court while delivering the judgment dated 26.11.2007 has not been considered by the Cooperative Appellate Court. The material which has been looked into by the Cooperative Appellate Court has not been considered by the Cooperative Court. Both sides want to address this Court 3 further in the matter. However, in view of the situation available on record, I find it proper to remand the matter back to Cooperative Appellate Court to give both sides appropriate opportunity to advance their arguments on the merits of controversy, including question of condonation of delay. For that purpose, impugned judgment dated 2.4.2008 in Appeal No. 2 of 2008 by the Cooperative Appellate Court, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside. The said appeal is restored back to the file of said Cooperative Appellate Court for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. Shri Bhattad, learned counsel points out that the Cooperative Appellate Court has treated it as revision. However, annexure filed along with petition shows it as Appeal No. 2 of 2008. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. The parties to appear before the Cooperative Appellate Court on 17th December 2008. JUDGE *GS.