1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WP No. 1725 of 2005 with WP No. 1728 of 2005 (Ratan and anr v. MS Coop Hs Finance Corpn and anr) (Anis and ors v. MS Coop Hs Finance Corpn and anr) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.K. Tambde, Adv for petitioner. Mr S.T. Dhurve, Adv for respdt no.1 Respondent no. 2 served. Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar and R.C. Chavan, JJ Dated : 24th April 2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The argument on behalf of the petitioners that the Bank could not have proceeded against the petitioners under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is devoid of merit. We have perused the original mortgage deed produced by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 Bank. It clearly indicates that the petitioners are signitory to that Deed. If it is so, the petitioners are party to the loan agreement which is a tripartite agreement between the respondent no.1 Bank, respondent no.2 Society and petitioners as members of 2 respondent no.2 Society. In this view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioners to argue that action under Section 101 of the Act cannot be proceeded against them. Any other contention available to the petitioners will have to be redressed in alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners by way of statutory revision. Although we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition, having regard to the fact that the petitioners in the first place resorted to remedy of writ petition and maintainability of the writ petition is opposed by the Bank, we think it appropriate to observe that if the petitioners take recourse to remedy of revision within four weeks from today, it will not be open to the Bank to raise question of limitation. In other words, the revisional authority will entertain the revision application on merit and not non-suit the petitioners on the ground of delay subject to its filing within four weeks. It is further made clear that the revision application will have to be proceeded in accordance with law and entertained if the petitioners were to comply with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. All questions are left open to be decided on merit. Judge. Judge. joshi