1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 3607 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No.1879 of 2008 [V.S. Jaiswal Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Co-op. Societies & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anil Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Ahirkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 03rd June,2008. Heard. Civil Application does not survive, as the Writ Petition is dismissed. Civil Application is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1879 of 2008 [V.S. Jaiswal Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Co-op. Societies & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anil Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Ahirkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 03rd June,2008. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Nagpur. 2. The order impugned is based on two grounds, namely :- [a] the revision is not maintainable as fifty per cent of the amount, subject-matter of Recovery Certificate, is not deposited, and [b] that the principal borrower had challenged order of Recovery Certificate before the High Court, and his petition, which was admitted, has been dismissed for default. 3 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Padiyar urged that the dismissal of said Writ Petition would not operate as res judicata, and also urged that since amount was to be paid by the principal borrower, the requirement to deposit has no application. 4. As shown in the order, though the amount of Certificate is much more, the dues on the date of judgment impugned were Rs. 8,84,030- 00. The petitioner was called if he is willing to deposit half of the actual borne out dues under the Certificate, learned Advocate for the petitioner, after taking instructions, expressed inability to deposit. 5. Heard. 6. It is seen that both the grounds, on which the revision has been rejected, are not shown to be erroneous. Direction to make 50 per cent deposit is statutory. Even if some latitude is to be shown considering the facts of the case, the petitioner has expressed inability or unwillingness to deposit. 7. Present is a case where the challenge to the Certificate was raised before High Court and petition was admitted. Dismissal for default is for all purposes adjudication, in the background that the Writ Petition was admitted 4 and now the Recovery Certificate has attained finality. 8. In these premises, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge |Hedau|