1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8385 OF 2008 Pundlik Bahirji Ingale .. Petitioner Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and another .. Respondents Mr. S.S.Kanetkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar, for the Respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 12/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Executing Court in Special Darkhast No.13 of 2007, by which the two applications at Exhibits 48 and 51 filed by respondent no.2, have been allowed. By application at Exhibit 48, respondent no.2 sought attachment, as provided under Rule 107(7)(iii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (for short, “the Rules”), of the amount deposited by respondent no.1-Corporation in the execution proceedings. In the application at Exhibit 51, respondent no.2 prayed for transferring the said amount in the recovery proceedings as per T 2 the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (for short, “the Act”). 3. The petitioner is a decree holder in Special Civil Suit No. 995 of 1997. Under the decree, respondent no.1-Corporation was liable to refund an earnest amount of Rs. Ten lacs along with interest at the rate of 9 percent from the date of suit till its realisation to the petitioner. Respondent no.1-Corporation accordingly deposited the amount on 3.5.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, applied to the executing court seeking withdrawal of the said amount. In the meanwhile, respondent no.2 filed the applications at Exhibits 29 and 30 in the Darkhast proceedings and prayed that the Bank may be joined as intervenor in the execution proceedings and also prayed for a relief that the amount, deposited by respondent no.1-Corporation, should not be made over to the petitioner in view of the fact that respondent no.2-Bank had obtained certificate under section 101 of the Act. Both these applications were rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division. That order was confirmed in Writ Petition No.5254 of 2007 filed by respondent no.2. However, respondent no.2 was given liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the Special Darkhast preferred by the petitioner under Rule 107 of the Rules. Accordingly, the applications at Exhibits 48 and 51 were filed by respondent no.2. Both these 3 applications have been allowed vide order dated 10.11.2008, which is impugned in the present writ petition. There is no dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount under the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Act. 4. Mr Kanetkar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to sub-rule (7) of Rule 107 of the Rules and submitted that the direction for transferring the amount to the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Act was wrong. I have perused the relevant provisions and more particularly clause (iii) of sub-rule (7) of Rule 107, which empowers the Recovery Officer to approach the Civil Court seeking attachment and make further demand, as made in the present proceedings by filing the application at Exhibit-51. Executing Court, after considering the relevant provisions of law, has rightly allowed the applications at Exhibits 48 and 51. For the reasons stated in the order and more particularly in paragraphs 7,8, and 9 thereof, in my opinion, no case for interference by this court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out by the petitioner. The writ petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4