1 W.P.No.9126/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9126 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original disputant. The petitioner filed a dispute for recovery of the excess amount recovered by the Respondent Bank. The present Respondent filed an application for setting aside no Written Statement order along with the Written Statement. The said application was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred). It appears that the cost was not deposited and the Court proceeded with the matter without Written Statement of the Respondent. The Cooperative Court allowed the dispute and passed the award for recovery. The Respondent-bank assailed the said order before the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal is partly allowed and the matter 2 W.P.No.9126/11 is remanded back to the Cooperative Court. Aggrieved thereby, the original disputant has filed the present petition. 3. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Court has wrongly observed that the provisions of CPC are not applicable. The judgment of this Court relied by the Cooperative Court in a case of "Murlidhar Dattoba Nimanka and others Vs. Harish Balkrushna Latane and others" reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 196, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the said case the Court was concerned with the interlocutory order. The learned counsel contends that when the cost was not deposited,the Cooperative Court rightly ignored the Written Statement and passed the order. The disputant had proved his case. The learned counsel contends that even on merits, the observations are made by the Court which are not in consonance with the provisions governing the field. The Appellate Court has wrongly observed about the entitlement of the Bank to charge compound interest. 4. The Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the Cooperative Court for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. The Appellate Court has exercised discretion. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order is passed, the cost is deposited by the present Respondent. In such circumstances, no perversity can be found in the order 3 W.P.No.9126/11 remanding the matter. The observations made are only for the purpose of deciding the appeal. The Cooperative Court dealing with the dispute would decide the matter on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and the case put forth by the respective parties. The observations about the entitlement of the Respondent Society to charge compound interest are only prima facie in nature and are not conclusive. The Cooperative Court after the parties adduced their evidence and put forth their case would independently decide about all the issues and the dispute raised by the parties. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.29.11.2011. asp/office/wp9126.11 4 W.P.No.9126/11