IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 Vidhushekhar Vasant Zambare. ... Petitioner. V/s. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune and others. ... Respondents. Anurag Jain for the petitioner. A.I.Patel, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17th September 2008. DATED: 17th September 2008. DATED: 17th September 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused record. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8th March, 2007 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and the recovery certificate issued by respondent No.2 dated 19th September, 2005 was confirmed. 3. The factual matrix evolved from record shows that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter, which is clear from the order of this Court in earlier petition filed by the present petitioner being Writ Petition No.2382/2004 which was decided on 8th April, 2005; wherein the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner was confirmed. This is the second time the petitioner has committed default. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, who is duly constituted attorney of the petitioner was not served with the notice since he was abroad. It appears that he was served through the newspaper publication i.e. by substituted service. The date of publication has not been disclosed in the petition by the petitioner. The period during which he was abroad is not disclosed by him in the petition. The particulars thereof are not produced on record. If a person is abroad, he is expected to have endorsements of foreign visits on his passport showing the period during which he was abroad. No such document is produced on record. No material particulars are to be found on record. Under these circumstances, the submission made cannot be accepted for want of material facts and particulars. 5. The property of the petitioner is being looked after by his father, who is his power of attorney holder. As per the recovery certificate, the amounts - 3 - to be recovered are maintenance charges, sinking fund, late fee charges, expenses incurred by the society on repairs and the expenses incurred on earlier round of litigation. All these details are to be found in the recovery certificate. Factually, no data is produced on record to dispute these figures. The litigation expenses incurred in the recovery proceedings can be judicially noticed by this Court. The earlier round of litigation reached up to this Court. The litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.20,142/- disclosed by the society cannot be said to be unreasonable when the society was required to fight with the petitioner in three different forums. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he was not given credit of the payments made by him to the society. So far as this submission is concerned, at this stage it is not necessary to adjudicate upon this contention in view of the fact that if the recovery certificate is put in the execution, it would be open for the petitioner to raise this contention before the Recovery Officer. If the Recovery Officer accepts his contention, then petitioner would get credit of the payments made by him. If the Recovery Officer passes an adverse order, - 4 - it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The disputed facts cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The contention in this behalf cannot be considered in this petition at this stage. The petition is, thus, without any substance. 7. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)