WP 5696 of 10 1 SSK/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5696 OF 2010 Murgharajendra Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus Shripati Tukaram Hasabe & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. V. B. Rajure, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED :26TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Rajure, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for Respondent No.3. 2. By the impugned order, the Respondent No.3 directed the Petitioner No.1-Bank to issue No Dues Certificate to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The Petitioner No.1-Bank obtained recovery certificate against the Respondents. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have challenged the certificate by filing revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision, the WP 5696 of 10 2 Respondent No.1 & 2 showed their willingness to pay the entire dues of the Petitioner No.1-Bank provided they get the benefit of One Time Settlement scheme. In view of the willingness shown by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, the Divisional Joint Registrar directed them to approach the Petitioner No. 1-Bank for availment of the said scheme and the Petitioner No.1-Bank was also directed to consider request of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and settle their account under the O.T.S. Scheme. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 thereafter, approached the Petitioner-Bank alongwith with statement of dues as per the O.T.S.scheme prepared by their Chartered Accountant. According to this statement, the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remitted a sum of Rs.92,580/- towards full and final satisfaction of dues under the O.T.S.scheme to the Petitioner No.1-Bank by cheque dated 15th March, 2002. 4. There is no dispute that the Bank has accepted the dues of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as per the O.T.S.scheme. The only question which deserved consideration was whether part-payment made by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 was required to be adjusted towards the principal amount or interest. The learned Respondent No.3 relying upon the ratio of the High Court decision in the judgment reported in 2001 (1) M.J.I..J 665 held that the part-payment made by the judgment debtor from time to time should be WP 5696 of 10 3 applied first towards the decreetal amount and it is not open to the decree- holder to appropriate payments towards the interest. The Divisional Joint Registrar also considered the statement of the Chartered Accountant of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 which is prepared in accordance with the above ratio of the High Court decision and came to the conclusion that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 not only paid the entire dues of the Petitioners as per the O.T.S.scheme but even made excess payment. Consequentially, Respondent No.3 directed the Petitioner No.1-Bank to issue No Dues Certificate. I find no error in the impugned order, so as to enable me to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition therefore, stands dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)