JUDGMENT - F.I. Rebello, J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.

2. The petitioner/Bank had obtained a certificate under section 101 against Rahul Bulk Carriers Proprietor Shri Prakashchandra A. Rai, Shri Sheshnath S. Rai and Shri Jagdishprasad B. Mistry. That certificate was issued on 10th May, 2001. Pursuant to the certificate, the petitioner applied for attachment of a row-house owned by the judgment-debtor/ Shri Prakashchandra A. Rai. The Recovery Officer attached the premises. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application bearing Revision Application No. 269 of 2001. The respondents filed objections on 14th March, 2001 before Special Recovery Officer contending that they had acquired right, title and interest in Flat No. VA-1 and VA-2 in Tirupati Villa under an agreement dated 18th March, 2001 and the said agreements are registered on 18th April, 2001. It was an objection available under Rule 107 framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Special Recovery Officer after considering the documents rejected the contention.

3. Aggrieved respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred Revision Application No. 269 of 2001. The said revision came to be disposed off by order dated 29th November, 2001. The Revisional Authority held that the attachment of flat No. VA-1 and VA-2 was illegal and consequently requested to set aside the same. The Revisional Authority also directed to quash the recovery certificate dated 14th March, 2001 and consequently demand notice dated 10th May, 2001. That really could not have been done as recovery certificate and demand notice was against principal debtor and guarantors and could not have been challenged, even if at all by respondent Nos. 3 4. In powers under section 227 of this Court, that part of the order will have to be interfered with.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, their principal contention is that no revision would be maintainable considering the provisions of sub-rule (19) of Rule 107. More relevant is sub-rule (19)(c) which reads as under :

"Where a claim or objection is preferred to the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be final."

Relying on this provision, learned Counsel contends that the revision preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was without jurisdiction and consequently entire order is liable to be set aside.

It was also sought to be contended that from the material on record, there was nothing to show that title had vested in respondent Nos. 3 4. To my mind, considering the documentary evidence it is difficult to accept that contention.

5. The only contention, therefore, which will have to be dealt is the construction of Rule 107(19)(c). The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to an unreported judgment of Single Judge of this Court, in case of (Apna Sahakari Bank v. Divisional Joint Registrar and others)1, decided on 14th June, 2001 in Writ Petition No. 1298 of 1997. On the construction of said Rule, the learned Judge has taken a view that once an objection is disposed off under that Rule, the only remedy that a party has, would be, by way of filing of the suit. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 4, their learned counsel contended that no rule should be read in such a manner as to be ultra vires of section 154 of the Act. For that purpose, the proper construction to be given to the Rule will be that it becomes operative after the exercise of the revisional remedy under section 154 of the Act.

With the above, we may now consider whether the construction given by the learned Single Judge, is the construction which is sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

In the first instance, it may be pointed out that section 154 and its effect on Rule 107(19)(c) was not considered or argued before the learned Single Judge. Rule was considered as it stood, without considering whether the Rule if so read would b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document