1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8877 of 2007 Shri Gopal Bendu Patil Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Agrigulcutral and Rural Development Bank Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.Milind Parab for petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte i/b. Mr.Ashutosh Gole for resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 21, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Parab, the learned counsel for the petitioner who was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- by the respondent no.1 - Bank for starting poultry business in the year 1995. The first instalment of Rs.40,500/- was released on 13/3/1997, the second instalment of the same amount was released on 21/3/1997 and the third instalment of Rs.51,300/- was released on 12/5/1997. Thus a total of Rs.1,32,300/- was released out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. . The Bank initiated recovery proceedings under Section 137 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies 2 Act, 1960 and it appears the recovery application was received by the petitioner on 20/5/2000. The recovery proceedings had concluded and the mortgaged property was directed to be auctioned. Public auction was held on 17/12/2002 and without challenging the said auction the petitioner filed Dispute No.841 of 2002 in the Co-operative Court and prayed for an order of permanent injunction for dispossessing or evicting him from the mortgaged property. The dispute was allowed by the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court as per his judgment and order dated 31/8/2006. The Bank, therefore, filed Appeal no.20 of 2007 which came to be allowed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai on 4/7/2007. Hence this petition. . The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court noted that the recovery proceedings under Section 137 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act had received finality and the same could not have been challenged by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act. The lower Appellate Court rightly held that the said dispute was not maintainable in view of the non-obstentae clause with which Section 137 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act opens. 3 This view taken by the lower Appellate Court cannot be termed as illegal or perverse and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. . Hence the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL