JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---The petitioner is an Apex Land Development Bank. The petitioner has a branch office at Sangli. The respondent No. 1 secured loan from the petitioner bank for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- out of which he purchased 4 cows. The loan was extended by the petitioner bank to the respondent No. 1 sometime in May, 1980. The said cows were security for the loan. Respondent No. 1 had insured the said cows on May 24, 1980. The insurance was to expire on May 24, 1981. However, it is the case of respondent No. 1, that the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were under obligation to extend or renew the insurance, did not take necessary steps. Unfortunately, on May 25, 1981 one of the cow owned by the respondent No. 1 died. This fact was brought to the notice of the insurance company by the petitioner bank by letter dated May 30, 1981. By the said letter, petitioner also made a request to the insurance company to renew the insurance policy, however, the insurance company rejected the said request. It appears that after some correspondence, respondent No. 1 filed dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the Co-operative Court at Sangli for a claim of Rs. 9,039/- alongwith cost and interest. The dispute was however dismissed by the Co-operative Court on August 5, 1985. The Co-operative Court held that neither the petitioner nor respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein were liable for the non-renewal of the policy. Against the said decision, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court being Appeal No. 516 of 1985. The Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 23-4-1986 was pleased to allow the appeal and further ordered that the petitioner bank shall adjust sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards the loan amount advanced to the respondent No. 1 for purchase of a cow. The Appellate Court passed consequential orders while allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. 2. It is the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Court which has been challenged in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7,000/- towards the loan amount advanced to the respondent No. 1 for purchase of a cow. The Appellate Court passed consequential orders while allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. 2. It is the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Court which has been challenged in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of the opinion recorded by the Appellate Court, it would be relevant to advert to the pleadings of the parties in the dispute filed before the Co-operative Court. In paragraph 1 thereof, the respondent No. 1 has mainly averred that the responsibility of renewing the insurance policy was that of opponent No. 2 (respondent No. 2 herein). Besides the said averment, the other relevant averment which has been emphasized by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 appears in paragraph 3 of the dispute, which states that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein respectively) were liable to pay instalments of policy premium to opponent No. 3 (respondent No. 3 herein). There is no reference in the entire dispute as to in what manner the petitioner bank, who had extended loan to the respondent No. 1 can be said to be liable either to pay premium or that the respondent No. 1 having been mislead by the petitioner bank which has resulted in the loss to respondent No. 1. Besides the aforesaid averment in the dispute, even during the oral evidence the respondent No. 1 has admitted that there was no written agreement between him and the petitioner bank about the insurance. He has also admitted in the evidence that the responsibility for taking out insurance is that of the cow owner. He also admits that he ought to have insured the cows. In my view, in view of the aforesaid pleadings and the evidence led by the respondent No. 1, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner bank was in any manner responsible for getting the insurance renewed. 3. He also admits that he ought to have insured the cows. In my view, in view of the aforesaid pleadings and the evidence led by the respondent No. 1, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner bank was in any manner responsible for getting the insurance renewed. 3. Notwithstanding this position, the Appellate Court has chosen to allow the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 on the solitary ground that although there was no written contract between the parties, yet the petitioner was bound to renew the insurance policy because of the previous conduct of the petitioner which had the effect of implied contract between the parties and also because of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. I am afraid, the principle which has been invoked by the Appellate Court for granting relief to the respondent No. 1 deserves to be stated to be rejected. Neither the pleadings nor the oral evidence would warrant such a view of the matter. On the other hand, from the evidence on record led by the respondent No. 1 himself, this view was totally impermissible. Apart from this, I am surprised to note that the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal on the aforesaid ground although the same was neither pleaded in the dispute filed by the respondent No. 1 nor in the appeal filed before the Appellate Court. This approach of the Tribunal cannot be countenanced at all. In my view, the Tribunal has clearly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it. The finding therefore recorded by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 23/04/1986 in Appeal No. 516 of 1985 is set aside and the order passed by the Co-operative Court, Sangli dated August 05, 1985 in Dispute No. ABN/36/83 is restored. In other words, the dispute filed by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. 6. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Certified copy expedited. Writ petition allowed. -----