: 1 : wp.836.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.836 OF 2011 Wali Mohammed ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Shailesh Shah i/b Joseph Fernandes for the Petitioners Mr.Mahesh Memon Respondent No.2 Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Resp. No.1 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JUNE 9, 2011. P.C.: 1. The order under challenge is that of a remand. The Divisional Joint Registrar has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 9.5.2005 refusing to grant the recovery certificate u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Aggrieved by this order, the second respondent cooperative Bank approached the Divisional Joint Registrar who has remanded the case back to the Assistant Registrar. 2. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the contentions because I am of the view that the order of remand does not prejudice the petitioners in any manner. Merely because the Assistant Registrar has observed that the Bank has failed to substantiate that the loan was granted or any amount was due and payable it does not mean that the order of remand was never called for. Looking into the peculiar facts, the Divisional Joint Registrar was of the prima facie view that if there is no dispute about the loan but the real issue is whether there is complete repayment and, therefore no liability, then there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to have made any comment on the : 2 : wp.836.2011.sxw contents of the documents produced. It is his plain duty prima facie to go ahead and consider the matter bearing in mind the contents of the documents as also the entries in the relevant accounts. If the Divisional Joint Registrar has adopted this course and has remanded the case back to the Assistant Registrar, I do not see any prejudice to the petitioners. Moreso, when the observations of the Divisional Joint Registrar are tentative and prima facie and by themselves they do not direct that a recovery certificate would be issued by the Assistant Registrar on remand. I have no doubt in my mind that the Assistant Registrar will go into all issues including whether the claim of the Respondent No.2 bank is within limitation or not and whether there were any entries which prove the case of the withdrawal from the overdraft account. All these contentions have to be gone into by the Assistant Registrar and he will do so without being influenced by the order of remand. He will also not be influenced by the disinclination of this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Needless therefore to state that it would be open for the petitioners to apply to the Assistant Registrar concerned for an opportunity to disprove the contents of the application by cross-examining any witness or officer of the Bank. All contentions even with regard to the maintainability or otherwise of such application are kept open. 3. The Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)