1 wp 5257.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5257 OF 2011 Ramesh Chudaman Badgujar and another .. Petitioners Versus The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies Nasik and others .. Respondents Shri P. B. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri K. B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondent No. 3 had filed proceedings U/Sec. 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for recovery. The same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby revision was filed by the respondent No. 3/bank before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The same is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Registrar for fresh enquiry. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 wp 5257.11 2. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Divisional Joint Registrar has passed the order ex-parte. On 15.06.2010 the matter was adjourned and on the said date it was intimated to the petitioner that the date would be notified subsequently and thereafter no date was notified. The hearing was taken behind the back of the petitioner. Even the Divisional Joint Registrar has not given any reasons while setting aside the order of the Deputy Registrar rejecting application U/Sec. 101. The Deputy Registrar on consideration of the documents and the facts on record has rejected the application. The Divisional Joint Registrar could not have interfered with the same in such a casual manner. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the record and proceedings as filed in the present writ petition. The roznama shows that on 15.06.2010 the matter was adjourned to 22.06.2010. Thereafter to 05 th July, 2010, 28 th July, 2010, 30 th August, 2010, 07 th September, 2010, 13 th September, 2010 and thereafter the matter was closed for orders. The petitioner was absent right since 20 th July, 2010. The roznama is explicitly clear. As such, the reason given that the date was to be intimated subsequently by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the 3 wp 5257.11 same was not intimated cannot be believed. Moreover, the Divisional Joint Registrar has considered that the documents were filed by the respondent/bank. The said loan documents, the statement of accounts were not at all scrutinized by the Deputy Registrar while passing order. No detailed inquiry was conducted. The Divisional Joint Registrar has directed the Deputy Registrar to conduct the detailed inquiry after giving sufficient opportunity to both the contesting parties. The learned counsel submits that the matter is fixed on 21 st July, 2011 before the Deputy Registrar and as such the matter be stayed. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11