:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4591 OF PETITION NO. 4591 OF PETITION NO. 4591 OF 2008 2008 2008 Rajendra Baburao Murgunde & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Padma Bharat Shete & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioners. Ms. Rashmi M. Vaity i/b. M/s. M.P. Rege & Co. for Respondent 4. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 8TH 8TH 8TH MAY 2009. MAY 2009. MAY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.45 of 2007. That Misc. Civil Appeal was filed by the Appellants - Petitioners before me challenging an order (below Exhibit 5) in Regular Civil Suit No.190 of 2007. The Trial Court rejected the application for interim injunction and aggrieved by that order, the Misc. Civil Appeal was filed. 2. Mr. Dalvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners - Original Plaintiffs does not dispute that as far as this Court is concerned, the Division Bench decisions rendered are taking a view that Co-operative Banks are also covered under the Securitisation Act. However, he states that the Division Bench Judgements have :2: been challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has issued notice and has placed the matter before it for hearing and final disposal in July 2009. Therefore, this Court should proceed to take up this matter after the Supreme Court decision is delivered. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submits that the Division Bench Judgment is binding on this Court and therefore, merely because it is challenged does not mean that this Court should adjourn the hearing of this Petition. 4. In the orders that have been passed at the interlocutory stage, the Courts below have found that the Petitioners have failed to make out a prima-facie case so also balance of convenience is not in their favour. The only argument that was raised on their behalf was that Original Defendant No.4 is a Co-operative Bank and the provisions of Securitisation and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short Securitisation Act) are not applicable to a Co-operative Bank. Reliance was placed upon some decisions whereas as far as the Bank is concerned, it invited the attention of the Court below to the Division Bench Judgments so also the Supreme Court decision. 5. As far as the reasoning on this point is concerned, the same is clearly in conformity with the law laid down :3: by the Division Bench of this Court. Those decisions are binding upon me and judicial discipline does not permit that I take a different view on the specious ground that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The reasoning of the Court below being in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the Division Bench decisions and further, the matter being at an interlocutory stage, I do not feel that this is a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is dismissed. 6. At the request of Mr. Dalvi, it is directed that if the Bank has already not taken possession of the properties persuant to the notice issued under Securitisation Act, it shall not do so for a period of eight weeks from today. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)