Bombay High Court
Maroti Laxmanrao Jadhav vs Vij Kamgar Co Operative Credit ... on 3 July, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp3779-17
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3779 OF 2017
Maroti Laxmanrao Jadhav PETITIONER
Age - Major, Occ - Service
R/o Bhavani Nagar, Sangvi,
Nanded, Taluka and District - Nanded
VERSUS
1. Vij Kamgar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. RESPONDENTS
Nanded, Through authorized Officer,
Maroti Kishanrao Pawar,
Age - 57 years, Occ - Service
R/o Nanded, Taluka and District - Nanded
2. Panjabrao Shankarrao Deshmukh (Died)
Through Legal Heirs
2A. Smt. Surekha Panjabrao Deshmukh
Age - Major, Occ - Household
2B. Vishal Panjabrao Deshmukh
Age - Major, Occ - Education
Both R/o Dayanand Nagar,
In front of Dal Mill, Nanded
Taluka and District - Nanded
3. Narayan s/o Govindrao Dawalbaje,
Age - Major, Occ - Retired
R/o Near Rajhans Nisargopchar Kendra
Shiv Vijay Colony, Taroda Bk.
Nanded, Taluka and District - Nanded
.......
Mr. Ram S. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 3rd JULY, 2017
{2} wp3779-17
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner - defendant No.1 in C.C. No.168 of 2013
instituted by present respondent No. 1 before Co-operative Court
at Nanded, against present petitioner and two others,
purportedly aggrieved by order dated 19th December, 2016
rejecting application Exhibit-92 seeking to arraign the then
Cashier Balasaheb Hanmatrao Deshmukh as a party defendant
is before this court.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Ram Shinde, vehemently submits
that practice and procedure which had been followed was also
followed in respect of amount allegedly misappropriated by the
petitioner and report thereof had been submitted to the then
cashier of the society. However, onward action based on the
report and record was the responsibility of the cashier, which
does not appear to have been discharged. Entire record is in
possession of the cashier and the society. He refers to the
averments in defence in written statement in respect of the
same and submits that having regard to the same, Exhibit-92
ought to have been allowed, yet the court has refused the
{3} wp3779-17
request. Learned advocate submits that in the circumstances,
the then cashier would be a necessary party, as correct facts
involved would come to the fore by involving the cashier.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the court has
taken into account section 94 (3) (c) of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 enabling the court to add a person
as party, for effectual and complete adjudication for settling all
questions involved. The court has considered contention of the
petitioner that report of distribution of share dividend to cashier
had been submitted and record is maintained accordingly. In the
circumstances, the court has considered that said record would
be in possession of the society for which cashier may not be a
necessary party and as such, rejected application Exhibit-92.
5. Looking at the reasons appearing under the order, as
aforesaid, it does not appear that reasons given by the court are
not proper or plausible. The court has further observed that the
petitioner should discharge his burden about reports have been
made to the cashier. Further, the plaint does not disclose any
involvement of the proposed party in distribution of share
dividend.
6. In the circumstances, the petition does not appear to give
{4} wp3779-17
rise to any circumstance for intervention at this juncture. Writ
petition, as such, stands disposed of keeping in view section 105
of the Civil Procedure Code, leaving open to petitioner to take
recourse accordingly. No costs.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp3779-17
