1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2099 OF 2011 (M/s. Krushiraj Agro vs. The Akola Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akot) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2011 This petition takes exception to the order dated 11/3/2011 passed by the Cooperative Court, Amravati whereby the application (Exh. 68) filed by the petitioner herein for dismissing Dispute No. 423/2002 came to be rejected. The petitioner herein is the original opponent to Dispute No.423/2002 filed by the respondent Bank, which is presently in liquidation. In the said dispute, on an application (Exh. 63) made by the petitioner, an order came to be passed, which is as under : 2 “Application is partly allowed. The disputant is directed to produce the orders passed by the Registrar from time to time regarding the appointment of the Administrator in the years 1995, 2004 and 2007.” On account of non-compliance of the said direction, the petitioner filed the application (Exh. 68) for dismissal of the said dispute. Pursuant to the said order, the disputant Bank filed on record the orders appointing Administrator, but those were not in respect of the years 1995, 2004 and 2007. It was the contention of the disputant Bank that in those years, no Administrator was appointed and if the Administrator was not appointed, how could it produce the orders. The said application (Exh. 68) was considered by the Cooperative Court. Having regard to the provisions of Order XI Rule 21 and Order XXXIX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the light of the aforesaid facts, the Cooperative Court came to a conclusion that the dispute could not be dismissed on the said ground and at the most, an adverse inference could be drawn against the 3 disputant Bank for non-production of the documents. In my view, the impugned order passed by the Cooperative Court appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it would be open for the petitioner to lead evidence in support of its case that the Administrator in fact was appointed in the years 1995, 2004 and 2007. With the aforesaid observations and without interfering with the impugned order, the above writ petition is disposed of. The hearing of the Dispute No.423/2002 is expedited. JUDGE khj