Megha 22_wp_13729_2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13729 OF 2018 Girish Manohar Mokashi ...Petitioner V/s. The Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Kishor Patil with Ms. Smita Mane i/b. Ms. Smita Mane for the Petitioner. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 18 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) Challenge in the Petition is to the judgment and order dated 7 September 2018 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra State Co- operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, dismissing the Appeal No.23 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment and order dated 3 January 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, Thane. 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Page No. 1 of 3 18 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34297 Megha 22_wp_13729_2018 3) So far as the dispute filed by the Respondent -Bank is concerned, the claim therein has been settled even qua the Petitioner. However, Petitioner had filed a counterclaim seeking following prayers:- "१२" तरी मे. न्यायालयांस प्रतितवादीची विवनंती की, (१) प्रतितवादीचा काउंटर क्ले म दाखल करुन घेण्यात यावा. (२) प्रतितवादी नं. १चे कर्ज खाते क्र. पी.एम. ३० व चालू व चालू खाते क्र. १०४१ ह्याचा खातेउतारा प्रतितवादीस उपलब्ध करुन देण्याचा वादीस आदेश व्हावा. (३) प्रतितवादी नं. १ ने वादीकडे र्जमा के लेला तिडमांड ड्राप्ट क्र. ६७४५३३ विद. ११/०६/ १९८२ रक्कम रु. १,०१,३००/- ची रक्कम २४% व्यार्जासह प्रतितवादीस परत करण्याचा वादीस आदेश व्हावा. 4) Though the main dispute got settled the counterclaim survived and was required to be decided independently. Accordingly, by judgment and order dated 3 January 2018, the Co-operative Court has decided the counterclaim independently and has dismissed the same. 5) So far as the prayer for return of Demand Draft dated 11 June 1982 for amount of Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest is concerned, Mr. Patil, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner is no longer pressing the same relief. He however, submits that at least second prayer in the counterclaim for making available statement of account for loan account and current account ought to have been allowed by the co-operative Court. He submits that in the entire orders passed by the Co-operative Court and the Co-operative Appellate Courts, there is absolutely no consideration to the said prayers made by the Petitioner. 6) Though Mr.Patil is not entirely wrong in accusing co-operative Court for not deciding second prayer in the counterclaim, said prayer has Page No. 2 of 3 18 August 2026 Megha 22_wp_13729_2018 been rendered academic since the main prayer in the counterclaim is for refund of amount of Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest. Now that the said prayer is not being pressed, mere supply of statement of account would not be beneficial to the Petitioner in any manner. He will not be able to pursue any independent remedy even if he detects any discrepancy in statement of account. Main dispute is already settled by making some payment by the Petitioner. His prayer for refund of amount of Rs.1,01,300/- alongwith interest is concurrently rejected by both the Courts. In that view of the matter, pressing the prayer for statement of account is clearly academic. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 7) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 18 August 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 11:20:54