- (1.) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that the Citizen Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Mithapur Branch, Jalandhar City (Respondent No. 4) (for brevity "the Respondent-Bank") had advanced a loan to the firm M/s Bhim Sen Hukam Chand-principal loanee (Respondent No. 5), in which, Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were the partners. Petitioner Vinod Bansal stood guarantor. As the loanee-Respondent No. 5 did not return the principal amount as well as interest, therefore, the Respondent bank raised a reference of dispute, in view of the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") for recovery of Rs. 54,48,849-89 P together with interest as per certificate (Annexure R4/1).
(2.) During the course of proceedings, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-bank made a statement on 19.1.2004 that the record of Respondent-bank be treated as evidence. Thereafter, the application (Annexure P1) for dismissal of the reference petition was moved on the ground that since the Respondent-bank did not lead any evidence, so, the reference petition be dismissed. The Respondent-bank contested the prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P2), moved another application dated 12.4.2004 (Annexure P3) for permission to lead evidence and to file affidavit of Ex-Manager of the Bank by way of evidence, in whose period, the loan was sanctioned to the principal loanee.
(3.) The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies although disposed of the application dated 9.2.2004 (Annexure P1), but the application dated 12.4.2004 (Annexure P3) filed by the Respondent-bank was adjourned, by virtue of order dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure P4).;