1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2671 OF 2007 Amarjeet s/o Autarsing Chhabda .. APPLICANT VERSUS Shirpur Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd & another .. RESPONDENTS WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2007 Satnam Kaur w/o Autarsing Chhabda .. APPLICANT VERSUS Shirpur Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.D. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the respondents. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT : 1 The only grievance that is required to be considered in the review 2 applications is in respect of non-disclosure of presentation of revision application before the Divisional Jt. Registrar by the respondent herein, petitioner in Writ Petition nos. 2670/2007 and 2671/2007, while orders in the aforesaid writ petitions were passed by this court. 2 It is pointed out that the grievance was made by the respondent in Civil Application nos. 8091/2008 and 8092/2008 in respect of rejection of application by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies for issuing recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is not necessary to go into the factual details while considering the review applications. Suffice is to note that in the applications at paragraph no. 16, respondent has stated that society has not presented any other proceeding touching the subject matter of the civil applications in any court of law. The applications were presented by the respondent in pending writ petitions which were concerning the matter in respect of issuance of temporary injunction orders by the co-operative court, and confirmed by the first appellate court. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, it was directed by this court to the Assistant Registrar to reconsider the request made by respondent for issuance of recovery certificate and pass necessary orders in accordance 3 with law. It is stated that the Assistant Registrar acting upon the directions issued by this court has considered the application tendered by respondent / bank and has issued recovery certificate. It is also further pointed out that the review petitioners herein did avail the remedy of presenting revision applications to the Divisional Jt. Registrar as well as remedy of presenting applications in pending writ petitions before this court raising exception to the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. It is contended that prejudice is caused to the review petitioners because of non-disclosure of necessary facts in the applications tendered by the respondent herein. 3 Respondent / bank has presented affidavit in reply and has tendered unconditional apology for the inadvertence committed. It is also urged that there was no attempt to secure any order by suppressing material facts. This court has considered the matter on its own merit and has issued direction to the Assistant Registrar in respect of consideration of the applications tendered by respondent / bank for issuance of recovery certificate. It is contended that, in the given circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the review petitioners. 4 4 I have perused the applications as well as earlier order passed by this court. Considering the merit of the controversy involved in the matter, the only proper course that could have been adopted and that was adopted was in respect of issuance of necessary directions to the Assistant Registrar to consider the applications tendered by the respondent / bank. It also cannot be lost sight of the fact that non-disclosure of pendency of proceeding before the Divisional Jt. Registrar is a serious lapse. However, the concerned respondent has tendered an unconditional apology in that regard and the same is acceptable in view of the facts of this case. It is also pointed out that the revision applications have been withdrawn before passing of necessary order by the Assistant Registrar. The respondents are hereby warned that they shall not indulge in such practice hereafter and, if, any such lapse is brought to the notice, serious view of the matter would be taken. However, considering the apology tendered by the respondent herein, I do not deem it necessary to cause any interference in the impugned order. It is also taken note of that the final order passed by this court is not vitiated on account of lapse that has been pointed out. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the review applications. Review applications stand disposed of. 5 ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/revappln54.09.odt