IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 1994 PETITION NO. 208 OF 1994 PETITION NO. 208 OF 1994 Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner. Vs. Rajeshwar Hari Dixit & others. ... Respondents. Rahul P. Walvekar for the applicant. None for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 11th August 2008. 11th August 2008. 11th August 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- --- --- . Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11th August, 2008, amendment has been carried out and the Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. has been substituted as petitioner in the place of Poona Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents in spite of service. 3. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10th March, 1993 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai in Appeal No.36/1993 whereby the order dated 22nd December, 1992 passed by the trial Court in Case No.CCI/146 of 1992 was set aside - 2 - and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter by recording evidence within four months from the date of the order. 4. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner- bank had obtained recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1060 ("Act" for short). On 2nd January, 1992, the aforesaid grant of recovery certificate under section 101 was sought to be challenged in dispute filed by respondent No.1. In that dispute ex-parte injunction was granted by the Co-operative Court vide order dated 21st February, 1992 which was, ultimately, vacated vide order dated 22nd December, 1992. As stated above, the Co-operative Appellate Court set aside the said order of the trial Court with direction to dispose of the dispute within four months from the date of the order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Act is not open to challenge in dispute under section 91 of the Act. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil v. Rajaram Bapu Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil v. Rajaram Bapu Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil v. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Sahakari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Bank Ltd. Bank Ltd., 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 315 and that of the learned single Judge in Kedarling Vikas Seva Kedarling Vikas Seva Kedarling Vikas Seva - 3 - Socy.Ltd. Socy.Ltd. Socy.Ltd. v. Dinkar Bhimrao Raut v. Dinkar Bhimrao Raut v. Dinkar Bhimrao Raut, 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. L.J. L.J. 152; wherein the Division Bench judgment referred to has been followed. 6. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by these two judgments. The recovery certificate issued under section 101 is not open to challenge under section 91 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the dispute initiated under section 91 of the Act is untenable. Consequently, not only the impugned order dated 10th March, 1993 is liable to be set aside but the dispute pending before the Co-operative Court itself is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 7. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are quashed and set aside. The dispute i.e. Case No.CCI/146 of 1992 pending before the Co-operative Court stands rejected as not maintainable. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.)