1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2009 Baburao s/o Tatyaba Chorge and others ...Appellants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the appellants Shri R.P.Phatake, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Shri A.R.Kale, advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 22nd November, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge (Coram : S.S.Shinde, J.) dismissed the petition on 9.9.2009 on the ground of alternate remedy and for non-fulfillment of the conditions put up by learned Single Judge in the earlier order passed on 24.6.2009. The counsel submits that the appellants were not noticed by the Recovery Officer. In Writ Petition filed by respondent no.12 Balkrishna Madhavrao Dhopeshwarkar, learned Single Judge (Coram : V.R.Kingaonkar, J.) admitted the petition and granted ad- interim relief on 25.2.2010. 2 3 Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 Bank submits that appellant nos. 1 to 3 are related to respondent no.5A. It is submitted that during the course of hearing of recovery proceedings, the contesting parties were served. It is further submitted that the contesting parties, like the appellant and respondent no. 5A are closely related to each other and they are creating situation wherein money of the Bank is locked in litigation.The financial interest of the Bank is suffering. 4 Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 Bank, on instructions, makes a statement today that the Bank would first exhaust remedy of recovering the amount in question against respondent nos. 5, 5A, 6 to 11 and in case some amount remains to be still recovered, the Bank would thereafter proceed against the appellants. 5 We have perused the impugned order and the relevant documents annexed to the petition. We have also considered the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the parties. In the facts of the case, we find that the statement made by learned counsel for respondent no.3 Bank deserves consideration. We do not find that the appellants have made out a case for entertaining this Letters Patent Appeal. Respondent no.3, according to the statement made, to proceed against the other respondents in respect of recovery of amount and after exhausting the remedies against them, take steps against the appellants according to the statement. 6 Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) dbm/lpa222.09