SSK/ 1 WP/4019.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4019 OF 2008 Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Mrs. Madhur Jayant Daptardar & Ors. ...Respondents Shri P. S. Dani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P. G. Lad, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Shri R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 3 & 4. Shri Ketan A. Chothani, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Lad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Patne, learned AGP for respondent nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Chothani, learned counsel for respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of respondent no.4/Joint Registrar whereby the matter is remanded to respondent no.3. The proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) were initiated by the petitioner-Bank before respondent no.3 against respondent no.5-Principal Borrower and respondent nos. 1 & 2 – Guarantors. Respondent no.3 by his SSK/ 2 WP/4019.2008 Order dated 27th July, 2005 granted certificate under Section 101 of the Act against respondent no.5 and respondent nos. 1 & 2 in the sum of Rs. 3,69,251/- along with interest. Respondent No.3’s order was challenged by respondent nos. 1 & 2- Guarantors by way of revision under Section 154 of the Act. Respondent No.5 did not challenge the said order. As stated above, respondent no.4 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to respondent no.3. Respondent No.4 remanded the matter mainly on the ground that the petitioner-Bank has produced loan agreement and D.P. Note dated 25th March, 1998 and no other documents find place on records. It was also the case of respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the Joint Registrar that the entries are not properly recorded by the petitioner-Bank. Mr. Lad, learned counsel, on the basis of this finding, states that the petitioner-Bank has produced certified copies of the relevant records. He submits that the petitioner-Bank ought to have filed original documents on record. Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the contrary, submits that necessary documents were produced by the Bank and copies thereof were given to the Advocate of respondent nos.1 & 2. He submits that the original loan agreement and D.P.Note were produced before the Court and certified copies of the other relevant documents were also produced. The question, whether on the basis of these documents, certificate under Section 101 of the Act can be issued or not could have been decided by the revisional authority. So far as the deposit entry dated 29th October, 2004 for an SSK/ 3 WP/4019.2008 amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- is concerned, he submits that in view of the pendency of proceedings under Section 101 Certificate, the amount was kept under suspense account and that could not have been a ground to remand the matter back to the Deputy Registrar. 3. I find merit in the contention of Mr. Dani. There is no dispute that the original loan agreement and D.P. Note dated 25th March, 1998 was produced before the Deputy Registrar. Perusal of the order of the Deputy Registrar shows that other relevant documents including certified copies of the cash credit extracts and statement of accounts are also produced by the Bank. The order of the Deputy Registrar shows that copies of these documents are given to respondent nos. 1 & 2. Whether, these documents are sufficient or not to grant certificate under Section 101 is to be decided by the authorities. The Deputy Registrar has already relied upon those documents and granted certificate under Section 101 of the Act in favour of the petitioner-bank. Respondent no.4/Joint Registrar in his revisional jurisdiction can consider the evidentiary value of the said documents. For that purpose, the matter is not required to be remanded. So far as the deposit entries for an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the said amount is kept in Suspense Account. The credit of these amounts always can be given to respondent nos. 1 & 2. In the above circumstances, in my view, no purpose SSK/ 4 WP/4019.2008 will be served by remanding the matter back to respondent no.3. The petition is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order is quashed and set-aside. 2. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.4 for decision afresh. 3. Respondent No.4 shall decide Revision Application No.189 of 2005 filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 afresh on its own merits and on the basis of evidence on record. 4. Since the matter is of the year 2005, respondent no.4 shall decide the revision expeditiously. (RANJIT MORE, J.)