FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8919 OF 2007 Along with Civil Application No.3031 of 2007 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr.Kishore Sequaira, for the petitioner. Mr Ashok Varma i/b Morlyn Monteiro for respondent no.1. Mrs Pramila S Bhaingade i/b M Janardhanan, for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 21.02.2008 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 by which the revision application no.194 of 2005 filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 19.7.2005 passed by the trial court, has been dismissed. Respondent no.2-Bank had taken out Interim Notice No.5100 of 2002 for their impleadment in the suit as a party defendant they being necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The interim notice was made absolute by the trial court vide order dated 19.7.2005. It appears that the respondent-Bank has obtained recovery certificate against original defendant-respondent no.1 under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. According to the Bank, the suit premises was mortgaged by defendant no.1, when they had advanced loan to one M/s. Siddhi Fashion Limited, in his capacity as a guarantor. In view thereof, learned counsel for the Bank has contended that if the suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration that he is a tenant in the suit property is decreed, the Bank may not be able to execute the recovery certificate against defendant no.1, who is the owner of the suit premises. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the courts below have rightly observed that the respondent-Bank is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. The writ petition, in my opinion, has no merit and it is dismissed as such. As a consequence thereof, the civil application stands disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)