:1: 8216.8217.11.wp ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NOS. 8216 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8217 OF 2011 Smt. Sujan D. Rahane and Anr .. Petitioners Vs. The Nashik Jillha Mahila Vikas Sahakari Bank Ltd .. Respondent Mr. Sanjeev Sawant,for the Petitioners. Mr. . G. Patil a/w Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete,for the Respondent. CORAM :- G. S. GODBOLE, J. DATE :- DECEMBER 5, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate for the Petitioners at length. Mr. Sawant submitted that because the officer of Respondent Bank had made interpolation in the documents which were filed in the Court, apart from directing an enquiry against the officer which has been done, the dispute was also liable to be dismissed. 2 It is difficult to agree with this submission. The two Courts namely the Co-operative Court and Co-operative Appellate Court had concurrently recorded finding of fact that a loan of Rs.30,00000/- had been sanctioned, that out of the said amount of Rs.30,00000/-, a sum of :2: 8216.8217.11.wp Rs.14,85,712/- was deposited in the earlier loan account of Petitioner No.1 and the balance amount was utilized by the Petitioner No.1 for her business. 3 In fact from time to time, Petitioner No.1, had made some repayment which shows that the transaction of the loan had been duly proved. The extract of accounts of the Petitioner No.1 have also been duly proved in evidence. None of the Petitioners(original Defendants) stepped into the witness box to prove their case that allegedly no loan was disbursed to them. Merely because the loan was not disbursed in cash and amount is credited to the Savings Bank Account of Petitioner No.1, which cannot be held that no loan was disbursed to the Petitioner No.1. 4 Petitioner No.1 or other Defendants have not stepped into the witness box and have thus miserably failed in proving their defense that no loan was disbursed to them. 5 In view of this, merely on account of fact that there were certain irregularities or illegality committed by the officer of the Respondent No.1 bank, the concurrent finding of the fact based on material and evidence available on record and which finding has been reached after ignoring the doubtful documents cannot be found fault with the case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. :3: 8216.8217.11.wp Rejected. 6 At this stage, Mr. Sawant pressed for continuation of the interim order passed on 4th October, 2011 for a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the interim order dated 4th October, 2011 is continued on the same terms namely i) that the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- deposited by the Petitioner in this Court will remain deposited and will be invested in the Nationalized Bank immediately and on further condition that the Petitioners will not transfer and alienate immovable property held by them. (G. S. GODBOLE,J.)