{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2007 Ramesh Shivaji Kote R/o Near Sainath Vidyalaya, Nandurki Road, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The Kopargaon Taluka Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kopargaon 2. Rashmi Ramesh Kote R/o Near Sainath Vidyalaya, Nandurki Road, Shirdi, Tq-Rahata Dist-Ahmednagar 3. Dnyaneshwar Shankar Gondkar, R/o Shirdi, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar 4. Sopanrao Wamanrao Warole R/o Near Khandoba Temple Shirdi Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, Advocate for applicant Mr.Abasaheb D.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 23rd June 2009 PER COURT: {2} 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Cooperative Appellate Court, Aurangabad in Appeal No.230/2004 dated 28.02.2006, which arises out of Dispute No.950/2001, the present civil revision application is filed by the applicant. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused judgments of both the courts below. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no issue was framed either by cooperative court or by cooperative appellate court in respect of the applicant and respondents No.2 to 4 being members of respondent No.1 bank, which fact is not at all denied by them in the written statement before the cooperative Court. Secondly, the dispute filed against them by respondent No.1 for recovery of the alleged loan is not covered u/s 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and hence the orders passed by both the courts below may be set aside and the CRA be admitted. 3. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 is a cooperative bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and is doing the business of banking. In the course of banking business it had advanced loan to the applicant for business of which repayment was due . Though it is disputed that loan was granted to the applicant by respondent No.1 to which respondents No.2 to 4 stood as guarantors, yet the fact finding recorded by both the courts below shows this fact stands proved and it is held that loan was advanced by respondent No.1 to the applicant and {3} respondents No.2 to 4 were the guarantors for the same. As the repayment of the said loan was due the dispute was filed u/s 91 of the said Act. As to advance a loan is a business of respondent No.1 and the dispute is relating to the business of the society and suit is for recovery of the said loan then it squarely covers under the definition section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. No other point requires consideration in the revisional jurisdiction. There are no merits in the revision application and hence the same is to be dismissed. Accordingly the revision application is dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/161-07