-: 1 :- wp-5428/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5428 OF 2010 Sohanlal G. Oza. ..Petitioner. Versus Bridev Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr. V. S. Kapse for the petitioner. Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar for R-1. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-2, 3 & 4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 28, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kapse, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned counsel for Respondent no.1 and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for the State. 2. The Recovery Certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the said Act”] was issued against the petitioner and in favour of respondent no.1. This certificate has become final. Respondent no.1 bank thereafter proceeded to recover the recoverable dues by putting the applicant’s property into auction. Inspite of repeated efforts on the part of bank, the property could not be sold in auction for want of bidder. Therefore, respondent no.1-bank applied to the Assistant Registrar for order under section 100 of the said Act read srp -: 2 :- wp-5428/10 with Rule 85 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 [for short “the said Rules”]. The Assistant Registrar after hearing parties concerned, on 29/9/2008 passed order thereby approving 1st respondent proposal for transfer of petitioner’s land in favour of respondent no.1-bank. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision under section 154 of the said Act before the Joint Registrar. Revision was also dismissed by speaking order. 3. Under Rule 85(4) of the said Rules, the petitioner had an option to deposit recoverable dues and save the transfer of his land in favour of respondent no.1-bank, however, the petitioner has not availed this option. 4. This Court by order dated 9th August 2010 accepted the petitioner's statement that he is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of dues as per the recoverable certificate within the period of three weeks. It was made clear in the said order that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, the petition to stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. When the writ petition was placed before the Court for admission on 7th September 2010, the statement was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the entire amount due and payable as per Recovery Certificate has -: 3 :- wp-5428/10 been deposited in this Court. The Court accepted this statement and issued notice to the respondents. Ad-interim relief granted earlier was also continued till further orders. However now it has transpired that the petitioner has not deposited the entire recoverable dues as per the order dated 9th August 2010. On the contrary, on 7th September 2010 incorrect statement was made before the Court that the entire amount has been deposited. 5. In above circumstances, I am not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner. On merit also, the petitioner has no case inasmuch as the recovery certificate has become final and the petitioner has not availed an opportunity under Rule 85(4) of the said Rules. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)