The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of co-operative courts under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for adjudicating genuine and disputed questions of fact, and the nature of the remedies provided under Sections 91 and 101 of the Act.

S.C. Gupte, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. This petition challenges an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code"), by the Co-operative Court, dismissing the Petitioners' application for rejecting the dispute application filed by Respondent No.1 before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("Act"), and an appellate order of the Co-operative Appellate Court confirming that order.

3. The case of Respondent No.1 in his dispute application was that the loan account opened in his name in the first Petitioner bank was fraudulently operated by his introducer, Respondent No.2 herein, in collusion with the branch manager of the first Petitioner bank. He was fraudulently denuded of money by siphoning amounts from his loan account without his having had any benefit of the alleged loan. A criminal prosecution has been pending in this behalf, wherein the manager of the first Petitioner bank along with Respondent No.1 disputant and Respondent No.2 herein have been arraigned as accused by Economic Offences Wing (EOW). In the backdrop of these facts, Respondent No.1 disputant filed a dispute application seeking a declaration that he was not liable to the first Petitioner bank in respect of the loan account. Pending this dispute application, the first Petitioner bank applied to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act. The certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar. It appears that after issuance of the recovery certificate, Respondent No.1 disputant amended his dispute application by adding inter alia prayer clauses (b) and (c) in it. Prayer clause (b) seeks a permanent injunction restraining the first Petitioner bank from recovering any amount from Respondent No.1 in respect of the loan account, whilst prayer clause (c) seeks recovery of the amount already recovered by the first Petitioner from Respondent No.1 under the captioned loan account. When the dispute application was amended inter alia by incorporating prayer clauses (b) and (c), the first Petitioner bank approached the Co-operative Court with the subject application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint. The case of the first Petitioner in that application was that Respondent No.1 disputant could not seek any relief in respect of a recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act before the co-operative court. It was submitted that if the disputant was aggrieved by the recovery certificate issued against him, his only remedy was to approach the revisional authority under Section 154 of the Act. It was submitted that though prayer clauses (b) and (c) were couched in a language which does not suggest a direct challenge to the recovery certificate, effectively what the disputant was seeking was an interference with a recovery certificate. It was submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Act, a proceeding for recovery of any amount as arrears of land revenue on a certificate granted by Registrar under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 101 of the Act as well as any order, decision or action of the Registrar against which a revision is provided under Section 154 of the Act, are not to be treated as disputes for the purposes of Section 91(1) of the Act. The Co-operative Court rejected the bank's application and the Co-operative Appellate Court upheld the order of rejection. The orders of the Cooperative Court and Co-operative Appellate Court are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners reiterates the averments made in the first Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Learned Counsel submits that having regard to the proviso in Section 91(1) of the Act, the subject matter of disputes in the dispute application, particularly, the reliefs sough