JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Rule. The only issue arise in this petition is whether order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai bench at Pune in Revision Application No. 27 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019 is open for interference in a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. The order under challenge was passed on the Revision application filed by Vidya Sahakari Bank limited (hereinafter referred to as said bank). Present Petitioner is Respondent therein. He is one of the guarantor to the loan sanctioned by the bank to the borrower M/s Mbells Labs present Respondent No. 3.

3. The bank has obtained recovery certificate on 14 July 2017 under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The present Petitioner being guarantor to the loan has filed a dispute on 10 June 2018 before Co-operative Court Pune by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. There is Government Resolution dated 25.11.2017 issued by the Government of Maharashtra Department of Corporation. By that resolution guidelines are given to the Urban Co-operative banks in respect of one time settlement towards the dues. The guarantor/Petitioner made grievance before the Co-operative Court that bank has not accepted his proposal for one time settlement vide letter dated 23 February 2018 (whereas in fact bank itself vide notice dated 23 November 2017 has advised to participate in OTS) and hence he sought direction from the Co-operative Court to bank. He made following request:

(a) declaration that bank is bound to extend benefit of OTS.

(b) bank to issue no due certificate.

4. Apart from bank, special recovery officer was also made as a party opponent. After appearance the bank took objection as to the maintainability of the said dispute by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure. It was turned down by the Co-operative Court as per the order dated 10th December, 2018. The bank got aggrieved and approached the Appellate Court. There they succeeded and the dispute/plaint was returned as held not maintainable as per the order dated 17 December 2019. This order is challenged before this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. Sachin Mandlik, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. A.P. Vanarse, learned AGP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Shrivallabh Panchpor, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

6. This Court is aware of the limitation on exercising the supervisory jurisdiction. It can be exercised to remedy grave cases of injustice or failure of justice. It is to be exercised with restraint to ensure that the court or tribunal act within the bounds of their authority. Considering the effect of the two orders passed as referred above, this Court feels that the petition cannot be dismissed simply by refusing to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Two aspects are important:

(a) Nature of the dispute made before the Co-operative Court and whether the nature is misleading that is to say it is the outcome of clever drafting.

(b) In given set of facts whether the plaint can be rejected by invoking the provisions of order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure.

7. First glaring mistake is noticed in the impugned operative order. The Appellate Court has directed to return the plaint whereas if a grievance falls under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has to be rejected and not to be returned. If the suit is barred by any law, plaint has to be rejected. For that purpose it will be relevant to consider the averments in the protest application made by the bank.

Avernment in the Application

8. There is specific averment in the application about bar of jurisdiction under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (said Act). Firstly for the reason that dispute does not fall within the parameters of the Section and secondly as per proviso the present dispute is carved out of the purview of Section 91 of the said A