1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2008 Mr.Madhukar Kashinath Kulkarni .. Petitioner Vs. The Special Recovery Officer, Shree Sharada Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.R.Deshmukh for the petitioner Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar for the respondents CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008 DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008 DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008 P.C.: 1. This is a Writ Petition in which the petitioner has prayed that the respondent no.1’s order should be struck down and it should be directed that this order should not be relied upon. 2. Though no particulars have been given in the prayer clause of the order of respondent no.1, it is contended that the respondent no.1 passed an 2 order in dispute no.353 of 1997 on 02.04.2005. The petitioner has further submitted that although the appeal had been filed against the said order by other aggrieved parties but that will not bind him. On instruction the counsel for respondent has produced the records showing thereby that the present petitioner was also the appellant in appeal no.789 of 0206 and in fact he was appellant no.3 and has filed his Vakalatnama also. 3. The bank filed a case against the present petitioner and two others. The respondents in the application filed their written statement and thereafter issues were framed. The bank led its evidence but nobody appeared for the respondents and the matter was decided in their absence and the bank had proved that respondent nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally responsible to pay the amount for which the suit was filed. 4. In the appeal all the contentions raised by the appellants were considered and the judgment of the Cooperative Court was upheld with certain modifications. In absence of any challenge to the 3 judgment passed in appeal, the judgment of the cooperative court cannot be even assailed and the leaned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to come to a conclusion that there was no debt against the principal borrowers as liability had already been liquidated. 5. These are matters which cannot be considered by this court, at this stage, the petitioner had two chances of putting forth his case and he did not do so before the Cooperative Court nor was such a plea taken in appeal where he was an appellant. For these reasons we do not find any merits in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. ( BILAL NAZKI, J ) ( BILAL NAZKI, J ) ( BILAL NAZKI, J ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J )