Naresh S/O Somaji Talmale v. Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Society Nagpur And Others

(1) 6wp1241.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1241/2023 Naresh Somaji Talmale.Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Nagpur and Others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. K. Thengri, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms D. V. Sapkal, A.G.P. for respondent Mr. S. K. Tambde, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

DATE :

APRIL 7, 2025 Heard.

2.

Respondent No.4 herein has filed revision before Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. The petitioner who was non applicant No.3 before the revisional authority, filed application for interrogatory. The application has been rejected on the ground that Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 106 (a) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, is in itself, a complete Code describing procedure to entertain and decide the revision, which does not recognize the relief sought by the petitioner. 3.

I have gone through these provisions to find that what has been held by the revisional authority is correct. 4.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tarkunde Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd & Ors. [2011(6) ALL MR 550] to contend that some of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are not applicable but some are.

5.

This argument leads to no final inference as to which provisions of the Code are applicable and which are not. In any case, the judgment does not deal with the scope of interrogatories in the revisional jurisdiction. That being so, in absence of any provisions to support petitioner's case, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale