1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.1622 OF 2008 Sanjay Kumar T. Jha .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Shivpati B. Pande for petitioner Mr.Patil for respondent No.2 bank. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th July 2008 P.C. . The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- with the second respondent bank. The amount is deposited because the bank had applied for recovery certificate under section 101 of M.C.S.Act, 1960 which has been issued by the Assistant Registrar, Coop.Societies on 12th May 2008. 2 2. The contention of the petitioner’s Advocate is that during the Course of proceedings before the Asstt.Registrar and even after conclusion thereof, the above amount is deposited. Yet, the bank has not accounted for the same. The challenge is to the recovery certificate in the sum of Rs.7,89,668/-. 3. After the matter was argued for some time and the petitioner seeks stay of coercive measures by the second respondent to recover this amount, it was pointed out to his Advocate that the petitioner has an alternate equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision to the Divisional Joint Registrar under section 154 of M.C.S.Act, 1960. 4. Petitioner’s Advocate states that the petitioner would avail of this opportunity. Upon the attention of the petritioner’s Advocate being invited to section 154(2A) of the M.C.S.Act, he 3 submits that 50% of the amount under the recovery certificate after deduction of Rs.3,20,000 which is already deposited with the second respondent bank would be deposited without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. This would be in compliance with Section 154(2A) of M.C.S.Act, 1960. The petitioner seeks four weeks time for that purpose. 5. Mr.Patil, Learned Counsel for the second respondent bank submits that the recovery certificate has been issued after due procedure prescribed in law. There is no infirmity in the same. The bank does not accept the correctness of the statement and the pleas raised in the petition. 6. Without entering into larger controversy and since the petitioner desires to avail of alternate remedy, it is directed that for four weeks from today, the bank will not initiate 4 coercive measures in pursuance of the attachment which has been levied on the immovable property concerned vide attachment order dated 18th June 2008. However, the attachment to continue subject to the remedy of the petitioner to file a revision application. If the petitioner deposits deficit/balance amount within the time stipulated above and also avails of the revisional remedy, then, the second respondent bank and the Special Recovery Officer shall abide by the orders passed in the revisional proceedings. However, the attachment to then continue till the revision is heard and disposed of. All this would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. Needless to state that if the petitioner does not deposit the balance sum nor does he avail of the revisional remedy, the bank will not be obliged to wait any longer after four weeks and it can proceed to recover its dues in accordance with law. Petition disposed of. 5 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)