1 (CAW3136/10 with CAW3137/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3136 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10620 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3137 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10593 OF 2009 Shri Agro Products & Ors .... Applicants. V/s Shri Laxmi Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the applicants. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Respondents. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 3rd March, 2011 P.C.:- 1. These civil applications are filed for setting aside the order passed by this Court dated 23/2/2010 in Writ Petition No.10620/2009 and in Writ Petition No. 10593/2009. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding 2 (CAW3136/10 with CAW3137/10) maintainability of these civil applications. He submitted that after the Writ Petitions were dismissed, the applicants/petitioners have filed LPA against this order. However, the LPA was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. In this view of the matter, in my view, these civil applications cannot be entertained since the applicants/petitioners had already challenged the order passed by this Court (Coram: Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.) dated 23/2/2010 and the LPA was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. Moreover, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, no case is made out for setting aside the said order. The said order clearly shows that there was non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. The Respondent – Bank has filed an application for recovery of the amount which was given to the applicants/petitioners herein. The award was passed by the Co-operative Court. Against the said award, an appeal was filed by the applicants/petitioners which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Writ Petitions were filed in this Court. In the Writ Petitions, direction was given by this Court to the applicants/petitioners to deposit Rs 10 lakhs. However, this amount admittedly was not deposited within the time granted by this Court and the Petitions were dismissed on 23/2/2010. LPA also was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. 3 (CAW3136/10 with CAW3137/10) 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/petitioners submitted that an amount of Rs 5 lakhs was paid on 23/2/2010 and civil application was made for extension of time and further amount was deposited before 31/3/2010. 5. The fact remains that before expiry of 25/2/2010, applicants/petitioners had not deposited the amount as directed by this Court. The grievance is made that the Petitions were dismissed before the time which was given by the Court to pay the said amount. The said submission is without any substance since, admittedly, even otherwise if this submission is accepted, the amount as directed by this Court was not deposited. Applicants/petitioners were given a loan by the Bank in 1993 and 1995 and some amount was repaid and, thereafter, the Bank had to file a dispute which was pending for 10 years. Even after these civil applications were filed, in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners, further time was granted to the applicants/petitioners to settle the dispute. Now, today, the submission is made that the applicants would not be in a position to pay the amount before 31/3/2011. The Bank also was gracious enough to reduce the decretal amount to Rs 25 lacs from Rs 42 lacs which the Bank is otherwise entitled to recover. 6. Taking into consideration the attitude of the applicants, 4 (CAW3136/10 with CAW3137/10) in my view, this is not a fit case where this court even otherwise should interfere with the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Civil Applications are accordingly dismissed. 8. It is clarified that the statement made by the Bank that they are ready to accept Rs 25 lacs was without prejudice to the settlement talks which were going on. The said statement will not bind the bank. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5 (CAW3136/10 with CAW3137/10)