Ghanshyam Eknath GhobaleAge 69 years, Occu. RetiredR/o. Followers Quarter, Near Hospital,Ambajogai, Tq v. ROHIT W. JOSHI

1901-wp-4410-2022(1).odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD901 WRIT PETITION NO. 4410 OF 2022Ghanshyam Eknath GhobaleAge 69 years, Occu. RetiredR/o. Followers Quarter, Near Hospital, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed1-A)Asha w/o Ghanshyam Ghobale, Age : 66 years, Occu. Household,R/o Followers Line, Near Hospital, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed1-B)Vivek s/o Ghanshyam Ghobale, Age : 36 years, Occu. Education,R/o Followers Line, Near Hospital, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. BeedAt Present Doctor Colony Side, Pathan Nagar, Near Chand Tara Masjid, Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur.1-C)Vishal s/o Ghanshyam Ghobale, Age : 36 years, Occu : Advocate R/o Followers Line, Near Hospital, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, dist. Beed1-D) Vidhya w/o Suryakant Late, Age : 36 years, Occu. Household,R/o Followers Line, Near Hospital, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. BeedAt present Sakla Plot, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani...PetitionersVERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough Its Principal Secretary Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322.The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Beed, Narwade/ 2901-wp-4410-2022(1).odtand Registrar of Money LendingBeed, Dist. Beed3.Shaikh Gulab S/o. Shaikh BabuAge: 67 years, Occu : PensuinerR/o Chennai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed4.Ankush S/o. Laxmanrao Jadhav, Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri,R/o Hanuman Nagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. BeedAt Present R/o Near Ganpati Mandir, Shikshak colony, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, dist. Beed5.Balasaheb S/o Rajabhau Shep, Age : 44 years, Occu : Agri,R/o Shepwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed...Respondents...Mr. Rahul D. Khadap, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. V. S. Badakh AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.Mr. Shrinivas A. Ambad, Advocate for Respondent No.3...CORAM :ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.DATE :21st AUGUST, 2025ORAL JUDGEMENT :1.The present petition takes exception to orders dated 20.08.2021and 28.12.2021 passed by respondent no.2-District Deputy Registrar ofCo-operative Societies, Beed and Registrar of Money Lending, Beedrejecting applications filed by the present petitioner for rejection ofapplication filed by respondent no.3 under Section 18 of theMaharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (hereinafterreferred to as “the said Act” for the purpose of brevity) and for stay ofproceedings in the said application on the ground that respondent no.3Narwade/ 3901-wp-4410-2022(1).odthas filed a substantive civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2019on the same cause of action. 2.The facts of the present case are that respondent no.3 hasexecuted three sale deeds in favour of the petitioner bearingRegistration Nos.2741/2011, dated 06.06.2011, 2944/11 dated15.06.2011 and 1706/2012 dated 25.04.2012. It is the contention ofrespondent no.3 that the said sale deeds are not with respect togenuine transactions of sale but the same are in the nature of securityfor loan advanced by petitioner to respondent no.3. Respondent No.3has filed a Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No.17 of 2019 against thepetitioner seeking declaration of ownership with respect to propertiessold under the aforesaid three sale deeds and a further declaration thatthe said sale deeds were executed towards security of loan advanced bythe petitioner to respondent no.3 as also for cancellation of the saledeeds. The said Civil Suit is pending. Although the said Civil Suit ispending, respondent no.3 has filed an application before respondentno.2 under Section 18 of the said Act on 15.02.2021. Respondent no.3has sought relief of cancellation of aforesaid three sale deeds in the saidproceedings. The present petitioner filed two applications in the saidproceedings on 20.12.2021, one for stay of proceedings in view ofpendency of earlier Civil Suit and second for rejection of theproceedings in view of filing of earlier Civil Suit. Both theseNarwade/ 4901-wp-4410-2022(1).odtapplications are rejected by respondent no.2 vide separate orders dated20.12.2021. The present petition is filed challenging the said orders.3.The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that since asubstantive Civil Suit is already filed, the subsequent application filedunder Section 18 of the Act challenging the sale deeds which arealready challenged in the Civil Suit was not maintainable. He contendsthat the pleadings in the Civil Suit and averments in the application areidentical. He contends that respondent no.3 cannot avail of twoseparate remedies with respect to same relief and same cause of action.He therefore contends that respondent no.2 ought to have dismissedthe application preferred by respondent no.3 or at best he should havestayed the proceedings till adjudication of the Civil Suit. He states thatthe Civil Suit is admittedly filed prior in point of time.4.The learned Advocate for respondent no.3 opposes thesubmissions stating that the scope of proceedings in an applicationunder Section 18 of the Act and a Civil Suit is different. He furthercontends that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 10 of theCode of Civil Procedure under which the applications were filed are notapplicable to the proceedings before respondent no.2. He also raises anobjection that the petitioner has remedy of filing revision under Section9 of the said Act and therefore on this count also the petition shouldNarwade/ 5901-wp-4410-2022(1).odtnot be entertained. 5.As regards the preliminary objection, it must be stated thatalthough remedy of filing revision is available to the petitioner, alternate remedy by itself does not bar jurisdiction of this Court inentertaining a petition. Alternate remedy is a self imposed restriction.6.In the facts of the present case it is apparent that respondentno.3 has filed Civil Suit challenging the three sale deeds and while thesaid suit is still pending, he has filed another proceeding under Section18 of the Act on 15.02.2021. Perusal of the Civil Suit and applicationunder Section 18 demonstrate that plaint averments and the contentsof the application are almost the same. The cause of action in both theproceedings is same and the relief claimed is also the same. It is wellsettled that a litigant cannot take recourse to two separate remedieswith respect to same cause. 7.In view of the above, the subsequent proceeding is notmaintainable. There cannot be any dispute with respect to fact that theCivil Suit is filed prior in point of time and that plaint averments, contents of application are almost identical and the reliefs claimed arealso the same. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has rightlyplaced reliance on judgment of this Court in the matter of Bhanudas @Suryabhan Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2022 LivelawNarwade/ 6901-wp-4410-2022(1).odt(Bom) 446, wherein it is held that a litigant cannot take recourse totwo parallel proceedings with respect to same cause of action. It needsto be stated that the said judgment also deals with situation where aCivil Suit was filed and application under Section 18 of the Act wasfiled by the persons who had sold the property and alleged that thesame was by way of security for a money lending transaction. It musthowever be stated that in the said case before the proceeding wasdecided by the Competent Authority under the Act, the Civil Suit wasalready dismissed, and the authority passed order contrary to thejudgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. In the present case, thesuit and application under Section 18 are pending. Nonetheless thisCourt has categorically held in paragraph 28 of the said judgment thatavailing two parallel remedies for the same cause of action is notpermissible. This is a well settled proposition of law.8.In view of the settled legal position that two parallel proceedingsare not maintainable for same relief the objection raised by thepetitioner goes to the root of authority of respondent no.2 to entertainapplication under Section 18 of the Act. 9.In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, thesubsequent application preferred by respondent no.3 under Section 18of the Act is not maintainable. Narwade/ 7901-wp-4410-2022(1).odt10.As regards the objection pertaining to applicability of provisionsof Section 10 and order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, there isno point in harping on technicalities. Perusal of the prayer in theapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 clearly indicates that the petitionerhad prayed for dismissal of the proceedings in view of filing of earlierCivil Suit which is still pending and has not withdrawn. 11.For the reasons mentioned above, the Writ Petition deserves tobe allowed and is allowed accordingly.12.Order dated 20.12.2021 passed by respondent no.2-DistrictDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Registrar of MoneyLending, Beed on application for dismissal of proceeding is quashedand set aside and application under Section 18 filed by respondent no.3before respondent no.2 stands dismissed.13.Since the application itself is dismissed the application for stay ofproceedings filed under Section 10 is rendered infructuous.14.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.[ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]Narwade/