1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2651 OF 2008 (Shankar Rajaramji Ukey vs. Hon'ble Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court & Anr.) 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. DECEMBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Siras, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patel, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The matter was heard even on 5.12.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given reasonable opportunity by the Cooperative Court to adduce his evidence in defence, the Cooperative Appellate Court did not appropriately considered this aspect, the review jurisdiction was not exercised though error apparent was noticed and that date of hearing of review was preponed by the Cooperative Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondents state that the Cooperative Court has appropriately dealt with the controversy and Cooperative Appellate Court has also found that reasonable opportunity to defend was given to present 2 petitioner. On the last occasion, in order to find out whether the petitioner was ready and willing to show bonafide by depositing some amount, he was asked to deposit some amount, but the learned counsel for the petitioner, today upon instructions, informs that the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit any amount. The dispute under Section 91 was for recovery of amount from him on the ground that it was misappropriated. To prove the misappropriation, relevant witnesses have been examined and cross examined before the Cooperative Court. All these details are available on record and even the Cooperative Appellate Court has in para 5 of its judgment considered various dates on which the matter was adjourned. The judgment of the Cooperative Appellate Court particularly paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 also reveal the application of mind on merits. It is to be noticed that there is no challenge to said application of mind on merits by the Cooperative Appellate Court. The record shows that the petitioner was only interested in delaying the disposal of suit and the present arguments also show that the award of Cooperative Court or Cooperative Appellate Court is being challenged 3 only on technical ground. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.