1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.1969 of 2010 The New Nagpur Urban Credit Co-Op.Soc.Ltd...vs..Suresh A.Jadhav and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.S.K.Tambde Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs.Deshpande AGP for resp.no.5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. This court had issued notice for final disposal. Learned AGP has appeared for respondent no.5. Advocate Hemke has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.4. There is no appearance for other respondents though they are served. The petitioner before this court is a Credit Co-operative Society, which has given loan to respondent no.1. Respondents no.2 and 3 are the guarantors for said loan. Advocate Tambde points out that after giving several opportunities, action for recovery under Section 101 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was initiated and present respondent no.3/guarantor filed revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before respondent no.5 and sought relief of a direction to the 2 petitioner to first recover the loan amount from original borrower. That relief has been granted by ignoring the decision of this court reported in Mh.L.J.2000(2) page 200 (Vinayak Chintamani Agashe (DR) ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors.). Learned AGP for respondent no.5 has pointed out that an undertaking was furnished by original borrower that he is ready and willing to make entire payment to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration that undertaking. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I perused the impugned order of Divisional Joint Registrar dated 4th July, 2009. The undertaking referred to therein is contained in some letter written by borrower to the petitioner Society much before filing of revision i.e. during the recovery proceedings. There is no undertaking by borrower before respondent no.5 afresh. The fact that respondent no.3 filed revision under Section 154 of the Act without complying with requirement of pre-deposit as contemplated by Section 154 (2)(a) of M.C.S.Act is not in dispute. Judgment of the learned Single of this court reported in Vinayak Chintamani Agashe .vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) shows that arrears payable to Urban Co- operative Bank can be recovered not only from a principal borrower but also from the guarantor. It is apparent in present circumstances that the borrower has 3 not done anything except expressing his readiness and willingness to make entire payment. He has chosen not to appear before this Court in response to the notice. Even guarantor/respondent no.2 has chosen not to appear. The impugned order dated 4th July, 2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, is therefore, quashed and set aside. The petitioner to proceed further with recovery in accordance with law. However, before proceeding further in the matter, it will call upon borrower by a notice in writing to make entire payment within reasonable period of fifteen days and if full payment is not received, it shall proceed further against guarantors for recovery of that amount or the balance amount, as the case may be. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs. JUDGE chute