MADHAV GANGADHAR BODKE Vs. BALAJI BALIRAM CHANDAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the order dtd. 31/1/2022 passed by the Registrar for Money Lenders/Special Registrar (Coopeartive Societies), Maharashtra State/respondent No.4., whereby the respondent No.4 has quashed and set aside the order dtd. 18/2/2022 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, directing to refer the handwriting of respondent No.1 (alleged money lender) for opinion of expert.

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint resorting to the provisions of Sec. 18(2) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "Money Lending Act " for sake of brevity) before the respondent No.2 contending that the respondent No.1 has indulged in illegal money lending transactions and he got executed sale deed dtd. 27/1/2016 by way of security against the loan of Rs.5,20,000.00. The petitioner alleges that despite return of the aforesaid loan amount by him along with exorbitant interest, the respondent No1. refused to return the land to the him. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is in the practice of getting executed illegal sale deeds under garb of security of loan advanced to needy agriculturists.

(3.) The cognizance of the complaint of the petitioner has been taken by the respondent No.2. The notice of the proceeding was given to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has placed on record various receipts issued by the respondent No.1 in his handwriting. The petitioner moved an application with a request that the aforesaid handwriting of the respondent no.1 be sent to the expert so as to verify the genuineness of the handwriting of the respondent No.1. In pursuance of the said application, the respondent No.1 passed order dtd. 18/2/2021 and referred the document containing handwriting of the respondent No.1 to the handwriting expert. The petitioner was called upon to deposit the requisite expenses. The petitioner complied with the said requirement and deposited the amount of Rs.32,450.00 in the bank account of the expert. The respondent No.1 was called upon to provide his handwriting samples. However, he refused to cooperate. The respondent No.2 vide order dtd. 23/7/2021, directed the respondent No.1 to remain present before the handwriting expert and provide sample of handwriting. Meanwhile, the respondent No.1 filed an application for recalling of the order passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner or sending the handwriting to the expert for opinion. The respondent NO.2 vide his order dtd. 18/2/2021 rejected said application.