:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1169 OF 2006 Laxman Basgondppa Vijapure .....Petitioners. vs. Siddeshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors. .....Respondents. A.L.Gore for the petitioners. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 9th March, 2007. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Gore appearing for the Petitioners. Perused the concurrent findings recorded by the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Court while dismissing the Petitioner’s Appeal No. 174 of 2003. 2. The Petitioner is admittedly a surety. The loan was taken by other Opponent and the First :2: :2: :2: Respondent Bank succeeded before the Trial court. The lower Appellate Court in Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, has observed that the Petitioner did not raise any independent defence but adopted the stand of the borrower. He has not led any evidence. The principal borrower has admitted the case of the bank namely sanction and disbursement of loan. In such circumstances, and when the Petitioner could not bring material to show that he stood discharged as a surety, the lower Appellate Court was right in dismissing his appeal. The concurrent findings are based upon the materials produced before the Courts below and therefore no case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The order of the Lower Appellate Court allowing the Appeal of the Respondent No.1 Bank is also based upon the pleas raised and substantiated by the First Respondent Bank. The Trial Court had erroneously reduced the interest, although, there was an agreement to pay the same at the rate claimed by the First Respondent. The Lower :3: :3: :3: Appellate Court has not granted penal interest and, in such circumstances, the Appeal of the Bank has been rightly allowed. Thus, there is no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. 4. On the last occasion I was informed that the parties were negotiating settlement and possibly the claim of the Bank has been settled. However, Mr.Gore could not obtain any instructions. The order passed by me today shall not, in any manner, adversely affect the settlement or the Consent Terms proposed or arrived at by the parties. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)