(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3114 OF 2011 WITH 1. Vaishnavi Trading Company, Through its Proprietor, Ashwini Ajay Malge, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Nawa Mondha, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. Rajkumar s/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Nobel Colony, Railway Station Road, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 3. Ajay s/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. as above. 4. Balasaheb Pandharinath Malge, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original respondents) versus (2) 1. The Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parali Vaijnath, Branch at Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Branch Manager, Vijaykumar Madanlalji Bang, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 3115 OF 2011 WITH 1. New Annapurna Dal Industries, Through its Proprietor, Shri Ravindra Pralhad Malge, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Udaygiri Audyogic Vasahat, Loni, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. Kamalabai w/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Nobel Colony, Railway Station Road, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. (3) 3. Rajkumar s/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original respondents) versus 1. The Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parali Vaijnath, Branch at Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Branch Manager, Vijaykumar Madanlalji Bang, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 3116 OF 2011 WITH 1. Annapurna Dal Industries, Through its Proprietor, Shri Ravindra Pralhad Malge, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Udaygiri Audyogic Vasahat, Loni, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. (4) 2. Kamalabai w/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Nobel Colony, Railway Station Road, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 3. Rajkumar s/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original respondents) versus 1. The Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parali Vaijnath, Branch at Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Branch Manager, Vijaykumar Madanlalji Bang, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... (5) WRIT PETITION NO. 3117 OF 2011 1. Annapurna Dal Industries, Through its Proprietor, Shri Ravindra Pralhad Malge, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Udaygiri Audyogic Vasahat, Loni, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 2. Kamalabai w/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Nobel Colony, Railway Station Road, Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. 3. Rajkumar s/o. Pralhad Malge, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original respondents) versus 1. The Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Parali Vaijnath, Branch at Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur, Through its Branch Manager, Vijaykumar Madanlalji Bang, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Udgir, Taluka : Udgir, District : Latur. (6) 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Taluka and District : Latur. .. Respondents. ........................ Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for petitioners in all four petitions. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent no.1 / caveator in all four petitions. Mr. K.S. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2 in all four petitions. ************* CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21ST APRIL 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale, holding for Adv. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, for respondent no.1 / caveator, and learned AGP Mr. K.S. Patil, for respondent no.2. (7) 2. As these four petitions raise common question of law and fact, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Hence, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 3. One of the contentions of Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale, appearing for the petitioners, is, amendment application moved by respondent no.1 on 22-11-2010 has been allowed mechanically even without formally fixing it for hearing and without extending to petitioners an opportunity to oppose it. 4. Adv. Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, appearing for respondent no.1 / Bank, points out that on 5-4-2011, while passing an order and recording it in order sheet, amendment application has been allowed. He also contends that no reply has been filed opposing that amendment and application for amendment, as also, objection to maintainability of appeal filed by the petitioners were both placed for hearing together. He, therefore, states that looking to the fact that huge amount is to be recovered from the petitioners and time being killed in this process, this court should not interfere in the matter. 5. Learned AGP Mr. K.S. Patil, appearing for respondent no.2, also supports the impugned orders. (8) 6. Perusal of relevant order sheets to which Adv. Mr. Gunale has invited attention show that on 29-3-2011, arguments were heard only on application raising challenge to maintainability of appeal and then matter was closed for orders on that application and it was adjourned to 5-4-2011. However, orders on that application came to be passed on 31-3-2011 itself. Order sheet dated 5-4-2011 then shows that respective parties were present and the appellant has carried out necessary amendment in their appeal memo. It is to be noted that instead of filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, respondent no.1 had filed an appeal under Section 152 or 101 of the said Act and that inadvertent error was sought to be corrected by moving amendment application. The order sheet after permitting the appellant to carry out necessary amendment records the request for seeking amendment is granted and then matter came to be adjourned to 26-4-2011. This order sheet, therefore, does not show that either petitioners or then respondent no.1 were heard by that authority on 5-4-2011. The order sheet also does not show that any hearing was demanded on that day. 7. However, I am not inclined to go into technical aspect of the matter. Application for amendment was filed before (9) respondent no.2 and petitioners before this court are seeking opportunity of opposing the same. 8. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. (i) The order recorded in the order sheet, permitting the respondent no.1 to carry out the amendment is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 is directed to hear the petitioners and respondent no.1 on the said application and to pass appropriate orders upon it thereafter. (ii) Parties are directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 9th May 2011, and respondent no.2 shall attempt to pass orders on application for amendment, upon hearing parties, as early as possible and in any case, by 16th May 2011. (iii) Proceedings before respondent no.2 are expedited and respondent no.2 shall attempt to decide the matter finally as early as possible and in any case, by 31st July 2011. (iv) It is also made clear that orders passed on 31-3-2011, which are impugned in these petitions, are not disturbed by this court. (10) 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3114etc