1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 287 OF 2009 Janalaxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd. .....Applicant Versus Smt. Janabai Shridhar Unawane & Ors. .....Respondents. Mr. R. A. Gadge i/b. Mr. A. S. Desai for the Applicant. Mr. V. P. Sawant for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Nivas D. Kamble i/b. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Respondent No.2. Mr. R. D. Motkari for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard Mr. Gadge, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr.Kamble, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. Motkari, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3. 2. The Applicant is the Defendant No.2. The Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Defendant Nos. 1 & 3 respectively. The Ist Respondent filed Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik restraining the Applicant/Defendant No.2 or any person claiming through them from transferring, alienating and/or creating third party interest in the suit property. Declaration was also sought that the Respondent No.1 is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit property. The present Applicant raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not given 2 prior to filing of the suit. The preliminary issue of jurisdiction was accordingly framed by the Trial Court after hearing both the sides. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order held that the suit is maintainable and hence, the present Revision. The case of the present Applicant is that original owner of the suit property was K. Jagannathan who mortgaged the said flat to the Applicant as a security to the loan. There is no dispute that the suit flat was subsequently transferred to Respondent No.2 and the said Respondent No.2 in turn transferred the same in favour of Respondent No.1. 3. The Respondent No.1 in paragraph no.15 of her plaint, specifically mentioned that the present dispute does not touch the business of the Applicant and Respondent No.3 and is merely an agitation to fight for her right to the property and as such there is no need of issuing mandatory notices under Co-operative laws. The Respondent No.1 is required to give notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 in case the dispute raised in the suit touches the business of the Co-operative Society. The suit of Respondent No.1 is based on title and she wants to protect her possession. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, so as to enable me to interfere in the Revision in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed, accordingly. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)