1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5260 OF 2008 Jagadish s/o Kedarnath Malani ...Petitioner Versus Sharada Nagari Cooperative Society Ltd. ...Respondent ..... Mr. R.F. Totla, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondent No.1 ..... CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE OF RESERVATION : 05 .09.2009 OF ORDER DATE OF PRONOUCNEMENT : 09 .09.2009 OF ORDER PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.8.2008 passed below Exh.5 and 18 in R.C.S. No. 242 of 2007 by the Co- operative Court, Kopargaon. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court Kopargaon is not sustainable. The Co-operative Court has accepted the 2 contention of the respondents No.1 herein that the Co-operative Court is not competent to hear the proceedings arising out of Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the remedy is to file revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not issued against the present petitioner and therefore, he was not heard by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies before issuing recovery certificate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when recovery certificate is not issued against the petitioner neither he was party to the proceeding before the Assistant Registrar, there is no question of challenging the recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Societies Act and therefore, consequently there is no question of filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, therefore, learned Counsel submits that on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that in fact the court has passed impugned order only referring to Exh.18 and the court has not passed any order on Exh.5, therefore, learned counsel would submit that the respondent No.1 may be given an 3 opportunity to contest the proceeding of Exh.5 and also on other points also. 4 After hearing counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the recovery certificate is not issued against him and he was not party to the proceeding under Section 101 of the Societies Act as required to be accepted. The Judge Co-operative Court has misdirected himself and passed the impugned order holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the dispute and remedy lies under Section 154 of the Societies Act. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable and the same is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Judge, Co-operative Court, Kopargaon for fresh hearing in accordance with law. 5 The Co-operative court shall give hearing to the parties concerned on an application Exh.5 and also on other aspects of the matter. Leaving all contentions open to the parties to agitate before the Judge, Co-operative Court, the impugned order dated 8.8.2008 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back. 6 The petition is partly allowed. 4 7 The parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Co- operative Court on 16.9.2009. The co-operative Court to hear and decide the application Exh.5 within one month from the date of first appearance i.e. from 16.9.2009. Interim order passed by this Court to continue till Exh.5 is decided by the Co-operative Court. *****