1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent No.4 as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition the said Respondent is a formal party. The Respondent No.4 is accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioner.

2. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and resultantly, notice of hearing dated 23.01.2014 came to be set aside.

4. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus :The Respondent No.4 who has now been deleted i.e. Sou. Pooja Annaso Jadhav was the borrower of the Respondent No.3 i.e. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit. The Respondent No.1 was guarantor to the loan taken by the Respondent No. 4. On default being committed by the Respondent No.4 proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for sh