1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.53 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.467 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2879 OF 2003 ... Rejendra N. Kapoor & Anr. ...Appellants v/s. The Citi Co.op.Bank Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents ... Ms. Archana Khan for the Appellant. Mr.Kishore V. Tembe for Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,JJ DATED: 14 th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Review Petition the original Respondent in the Appeal seeks review of the order dated 8 th April, 2010. It appears that 2 recovery certificate under the Co.operative Societies Act was issued against the present Applicant. That recovery certificate was set aside by the learned single Judge of this court by order dated 15-1-2005. In the Appeal that order of the learned single Judge was set aside in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, which is referred to in the order dated 8 th April, 2010. 2. Review Petition is filed by the original Respondent on the ground that the lawyer could not remain present before the Court on 8 th April, 2010 because of some mis- communication and the ground of review is that this court did not consider the case of the Respondent that in September, 2004 under one time settlement scheme the bank accepted certain amounts from the Respondent and the loan amount was cleared. 3 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent on this aspect. She relies on the averments made in the affidavit dated 30 th March, 2009. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the original Appellant/Bank, however, disputed that there was any one time settlement reached in relation to repayment of loan between the Bank and the Respondent- Applicant. He points out that if any settlement is reached between the Bank and the Applicant, then the Bank could not have continued the account. He points out from the documents produced by the Applicant that the Bank has shown that huge amount is due from the Applicant as on 31-3-2005, which is the date after the date of alleged settlement. In our opinion, whether during the pendency of 4 the Appeal any one time settlement for recovery of the loan was arrived at between the parties or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in this Appeal. The proper remedy of the Applicant would be to raise this contention as a defence before the Recovery Officer, before whom the proceedings will be taken up for recovery. If such a contention is raised, the Recovery Officer is bound to consider it in accordance with law. But for that reason, Review Petition cannot be entertained. It is disposed of. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.P.SondurBaldota J.)