JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Smita Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rahul Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent/Assistant Registrar. Shri S. R. Dambhare, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is absent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 3. All these writ petitions, raise an interesting issue regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 in exercising the powers as vested in him under the various provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the MCS Act”, hereinafter). 4. To understand the background, it is necessary to narrate the factual position in brief. (a) All the petitioners are borrowers of the respondent No. 1-Bank, who have defaulted in the repayment of the borrowings, as a result of which, the respondent No. 1-Bank had initiated action against the petitioners under the provisions of section 101 of the MCS Act. (b) It is an admitted position, that the respondent No.1-Bank, has Branch Office at Shegaon, where all the petitioners, conduct their various businesses. All the documents regarding the loan were executed at Shegaon, as well as the disbursements were made to the petitioners from the Shegaon Branch of the respondent No. 1. No transaction whatsoever took place at Nandura, which has the Head Office of the respondent No. 1, which is a Co-operative Bank, except for the fact that the sanction of the loan was made by the Head Office which was then communicated to the branch office at Shegaon, which in turn, got the mortgages of immovable properties situated at Shegaon, executed at Shegaon and disbursed the loans from Shegaon. (c) The respondent No. 1, on the basis of a Resolution No. 13 passed in its Annual General Meeting dated 4-8-2019, held at Nandura, wherein it was resolved to initiate proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against all the defaulters, filed proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act with the respondent No. 5 at Nandura. (c) The respondent No. 1, on the basis of a Resolution No. 13 passed in its Annual General Meeting dated 4-8-2019, held at Nandura, wherein it was resolved to initiate proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against all the defaulters, filed proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act with the respondent No. 5 at Nandura. In those proceedings, an objection was raised by the petitioners, regarding tenability of the proceedings on the point of territorial jurisdiction, contending that all the transactions regarding the loan advanced to the petitioners, had taken place at Shegaon and so also the documents relating thereto had also been executed at Shegaon and therefore the respondent No. 5 who was the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies for Nandura, did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 101 of the MCS Act. (d) The respondent No. 1-Bank by its reply dated 29-7-2020 opposed the said application, contending that since the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 was at Nandura and the Resolution sanctioning the grant of the loan and so also the Resolution to initiate action against the defaulters were passed at the Head Office at Nandura, the respondent No. 5 would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications under section 101 of the MCS Act. (e) A rejoinder-cum-written notes of argument to this was filed by the petitioners on 5-8-2020. (f) By the impugned order dated 5-8-2020, the respondent No. 5 relying upon the position that the loan application was sanctioned at Nandura as per Resolution dated 27-12-2016 and the Resolution for initiating legal proceedings was passed at Nandura on 4-8-2019, held that the respondent No. 5 had territorial jurisdiction. It is this order, which is impugned in all these petitions. 5. It is worthwhile to note that subsequently the respondent No. 5 has issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) against two of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2083/2020 and 2037/2020 and an application for amendment raising a challenge to the same has been allowed in Writ Petition No. 2083/2020, whereas a similar application in Writ Petition No. 2037/2020 is pending. In the other writ petitions no RRC has yet been issued. 6. Mrs. 2083/2020 and 2037/2020 and an application for amendment raising a challenge to the same has been allowed in Writ Petition No. 2083/2020, whereas a similar application in Writ Petition No. 2037/2020 is pending. In the other writ petitions no RRC has yet been issued. 6. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, that the respondent No. 5, did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 101 of the MCS Act, as all the actions regarding the submission of the application for grant of a loan, the execution of the mortgages as well as the disbursement of the loan, was done by the Shegaon Branch of the respondent No. 1 and merely because the Head Office at Nandura had sanctioned the loan or passed a general Resolution, for taking action against all defaulters, that would not clothe the respondent No. 5 with jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 101 of the MCS Act. 6.1. Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the definition of a Registrar, as contained in section 2(24) of the MCS Act and so also section 3 in Chapter-II, which confers power upon the State Government to appoint the Registrar and his subordinates and contends that there could only be one Registrar appointed for the entire State and appointment of any other person to assist such Registrar would be for the area for which such appointment is made and such person appointed as an Assistant would therefore have the authority to exercise the powers as permissible under the MCS Act within the area of his appointment, which according to her, is akin to the concept of territorial jurisdiction. She further places reliance upon section 11 of the MCS Act, which confers power upon the Registrar to decide certain questions as mentioned therein. Further reliance is placed upon section 101(3) and (4) of the MCS Act in support of the aforesaid contention. She also relies upon the format of the application under section 101, which is to be made in Form-U [Rule 86 A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, “the MCS Rules”, hereinafter)] and specifically Clause 14 therein, which refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the Deputy/Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. She also relies upon the format of the application under section 101, which is to be made in Form-U [Rule 86 A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, “the MCS Rules”, hereinafter)] and specifically Clause 14 therein, which refers to the territorial jurisdiction of the Deputy/Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. Further reliance is placed upon Rule 86 A of the MCS Rules, which requires that the application under section 101 of the MCS Act, shall be in Form-U and has to be presented to the office of the Registrar, which in her submission, has territorial jurisdiction. 6.2. She further places reliance upon the notification dated 7-8-1993, whereunder the area in which the various Assistants appointed to the Registrar under section 3 were authorized to exercise powers and the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars in Taluka were authorized to exercise powers are specified, in respect of the provisions as specified in Column No. 4 of the notification. Further reliance is placed upon the Notification published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Part IV-A dated 28-12-2000 to submit that the Deputy Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction over a Taluka/Ward/City. Further reliance is placed upon the communication dated 30-8-2021 whereunder, the Information Officer of the office of the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Buldhana has provided information that the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Nandura has territorial jurisdiction over the Nandura Taluka only. Reliance is also placed upon the information published on the official website of the Co-operative Department, State of Maharashtra in which Appendix-1 relates to the information as to the office of the respondent No. 5, wherein row No. 6, indicates, that the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 is restricted to Nandura Taluka only. She therefore submits that the concept of territorial jurisdiction is very much present in the MCS Act, and specifically regarding the exercise of powers by the Registrar and persons appointed to assist him under section 3 thereof, in view of which, considering the factual position, as narrated above, it is her contention that the respondent No. 5 did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the application under section 101 of the MCS Act as filed by the respondent No. 1. She therefore submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the touchstone of law and the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction having been taken at the earliest opportunity, the same could not have been rejected on the mere ground that Resolution to sanction the loan and initiate proceedings were taken at the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 at Nandura. It is further submitted that in case such an action is permitted and granted the sanction of law, it would result in multiple litigations and so also would create jurisdictions which were impermissible, even under the provisions of the MCS Act and the Rules made thereunder. She therefore submits that the impugned order, ought to go and in case it is so held, all consequent actions, would also not survive. 7. Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits, that in so far as Writ Petition No. 2083/2020 and Writ Petition No. 2037/2020 are concerned, since RRC has been issued in these matters subsequently, those petitions would not be maintainable and the petitioners should be relegated to the remedy under section 154 of the MCS Act, which would require the deposit of the amount as per the provisions of section 154(2)(a) of the MCS Act. 7.1. He further submits that, the question of territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter, as the respondent No. 5 has inherent jurisdiction to deal with matters under section 101 of the MCS Act, for which reliance is placed upon Ashok Laxman Kale vs. Ujwala Ashok Kale, 2007(2) ALL MR 588 and Hira Lal Patni vs. Sri Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199 . 7.2. He submits that since the Resolution sanctioning the loan, and the one for initiating the proceedings were passed at Nandura the respondent No. 5 will have jurisdiction. 7.3. He further submits that the concept of territorial jurisdiction is absent under the MCS Act and therefore, the respondent No. 5, was well within his rights to entertain the application under section 101 of the MCS Act. 8. Ms. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Assistant Registrar, who is respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 2083/2020 supports the impugned order and adopts the argument of Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 9. 8. Ms. Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Assistant Registrar, who is respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 2083/2020 supports the impugned order and adopts the argument of Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 9. Though the MCS Act, in respect of the exercise of powers under section 91 or for that matter under section 101 thereunder, does not specifically state about territorial jurisdiction, in my considered opinion, the concept and its applicability, is inherent and inbuilt into the provisions. Any other view, would definitely lead to chaos. That the provisions of the MCS Act, contemplate territorial jurisdiction, is clearly apparent, from the provisions of section 3 of the MCS Act, which specifically contemplates, the appointment of a Registrar and one or more persons to assist such Registrar to be appointed as such, in such local areas or throughout the State as would be specified in this behalf. For the sake of ready reference, section 3 of the MCS Act is reproduced as under :- “Section 3. Registrar and his subordinates. - The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State; and may appoint one or more persons to assist such Registrar with such designations, and in such local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf, and may, be general or special order, confer on any such person or persons all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The person or persons so appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom any powers of the Registrar are conferred, shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. They shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by the State Government.” (emphasis supplied) It is in pursuance to this provision, that Deputy and Assistant Registrars have been appointed for various Districts, Talukas in the entire State, and have been conferred power to enforce the provisions of the MCS Act, within the local areas, for which they have been appointed. 10. 10. The expression “and in such local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf”, clearly indicates the conferment of the exercise of powers in different areas as specified, which specification has to be by way of a Notification in that behalf. Thus, the appointment of the persons to assist the Registrar, is for specified local areas, is clearly spelt out from reading of section 3 of the MCS Act and it is only within this specified local area, that the persons appointed to assist the Registrar would be entitled to exercise the powers as conferred upon them and not otherwise. 11. This is further fortified by the Notifications dated 7-8-1993 and 28-12-2000, which notify the appointment of Deputy/Assistant Registrar, for the Taluka, Ward, City and also the powers which they are entitled to exercise, which would indicate that the officers appointed to assist the Registrar under section 3 of the MCS Act have been so appointed for particular areas and have been empowered to exercise jurisdiction in those areas alone, which is demonstrable from a plain reading of the language of those Notifications, the relevant portions of which are as under :- Notification dated 7-8-1993 issued under section 3 of the MCS Act Sr. No. Officers Area Powers 05 Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars in Taluka. All powers of the Registrar under the Act and the said rules not being powers under - (a) Sections 9 (4), 12(3), Explanation II to sub-section (3) of section 29, proviso to sub-section (2) of sections 66, 70 (d), 75(2), sub-sections (1) and (6), of sections 81, 90 (2), 134, 142, 148(3), 152, 153, 154 and 159. (b) Rules 2 (c), 11, 22(2), 42, 43(2), 46-A, proviso to sub-rule (1) of rules 62, 69(1) and Explanation 2 thereto, 69 (7), 74, 84, 85(9), sub-rules (10), (11), (14) and (15) of Rules 93, 95, 97, sub-rules (1) and (4) of Rule 100 insofar as they relate to sale by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, sub-rule (2) of Rule 102 insofar as it relates to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, 103 (2), sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 107 insofar as they relate to scale of deposits for execution of decrees. Notification dated 28-12-2000 published in Maharashtra Government Gazette Part IV-A under section 3 of the MCS Act Sr. Notification dated 28-12-2000 published in Maharashtra Government Gazette Part IV-A under section 3 of the MCS Act Sr. No. Officers Jurisdiction Powers 01 Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Division Sub-rule (1) (g) of Rule 56-A. Sub-rules (2), (3) (4) of Rule 56-A. Sub-rules (3), (4) of Rule 56-B. Sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 56-D. 02 District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. District Sub-rules (1) (g) of Rule 56-A. Sub-rules (2), (3), (4) of Rule 56-A. Sub-rules (3) (4) of Rule 56-B. Sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 56-D. 03 Taluka/Ward/City Deputy Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Taluka/Ward/City As above 12. This is also evident from the communication dated 30-8-2021 issued by the Information Officer and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Buldhana, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there are eleven offices of the Assistant Registrar in the District of Buldhana and the jurisdiction of such Assistant Registrars is confined to the area for which they have been appointed. It also mentions that an Assistant Registrar had been appointed for the Nandura Taluka, who has jurisdiction over the local area of Nandura Taluka. For the sake of ready reference, the said communication dated 30-8-2021, issued by the Information Officer and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Buldhana, is reproduced as under :- 13. It is thus apparent that the jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar is necessarily controlled by the provisions of section 3 of the MCS Act as well as the Notifications appointing him, which restricts such jurisdiction to the local limits of the area, for which such person has been appointed. The contention that the Assistants appointed under section 3 of the MCS Act would have inherent jurisdiction, to exercise powers as conferred upon them, merely by virtue of their appointments, is clearly misconceived as section 3 of the MCS Act, enumerates that the State may by general or special order confer on any such person or persons, appointed to assist the Registrar, all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the MCS Act, which would indicate that the conferment of exercise of powers under the MCS Act is not automatic but has to be done by a general or special order by the State. Even then, the exercise of such jurisdiction would be controlled by the territorial limitations imposed due to the area for which such appointment is made. Even then, the exercise of such jurisdiction would be controlled by the territorial limitations imposed due to the area for which such appointment is made. Such division and demarcation of territorial jurisdiction of the authority empowered with the jurisdiction, to exercise powers as vested in such authority by the Statute, is of the utmost importance as in absence of such a structured division, the situation would dissolve into a position, where any Assistant Registrar appointed for a particular area, would be able to exercise jurisdiction over any other area on the ground that he has inherent jurisdiction. The plea of existence of inherent jurisdiction even otherwise, therefore cannot be stretched to an absurdity so as to make it unworkable at all. It has to be necessarily viewed in the context of the limits of exercise of jurisdiction placed upon the person so exercising it, within the territorial ambit of its appointment. This being the position, and the conferment of the exercise of powers of the Registrar upon the persons appointed to assist him under section 3 of the MCS Act, not being inherent merely by reason of the appointment, but by general or special order, as is also indicated by the notifications referred to above, it cannot be said that the MCS Act does not have the concept of territorial jurisdiction and due to existence of any inherent powers the respondent No. 5, had inherent jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act. Even though powers to act under section 101 of the MCS Act, have been conferred upon the respondent No. 5, the exercise of such powers is confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the local area for which he has been appointed and not otherwise. This is also spelt out from the territorial jurisdiction of the various Co-operative Courts under section 91 of the MCS Act and Co-operative Appellate Courts appointed to exercise jurisdiction in a territorial area. 14. That this concept is very much there is also borne out from Form-U, the application for grant of certificate for recovery under section 101 of the MCS Act, which in Clause-14 requires the statement to be made regarding the cause of action having arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of the Deputy/Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who is empowered to exercise the powers under section 101 of the MCS Act. It will therefore have to be held, that the respondent No. 5 has jurisdiction, only within the territorial limits of Nandura Taluka and not beyond. 15. That takes me to the consideration of the question as to whether it can be said, that any cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5. To contend that this is so, there are only three grounds, the first is that the respondent No. 1 has its Head Office at Nandura, second is that the Resolution sanctioning the loan was passed at Nandura and the third is that the Resolution for initiating action under section 101 of the MCS Act was also passed at the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 at Nandura. As against this, it is an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 has a branch office at Shegaon to whom the application for grant of loan was made by the petitioners. The communication regarding acceptance of the loan was also issued by the branch at Shegaon. All the documents, relating to the grant of the loan including the mortgage were executed at Shegaon. The loan was also disbursed to the petitioners at Shegaon and all the petitioners reside at Shegaon or conduct their business at Shegaon. In light of the above, merely because a general Resolution was passed on 4-8-2019, at the Head Office at Nandura, whereby it was resolved that action under section 101 of the MCS Act be initiated against all defaulters of the respondent No. 1, which is an internal document of the respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that the cause of action, had arisen at Nandura. In this regard a perusal of the RRC issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Shegaon in favour of the respondent No. 1-Bank against one Mrs. Vidya Ramgir Giri dated 31-8-2020 under section 101 of the MCS Act would indicate that the said person had taken a loan from the respondent No. 1 and on account of default, the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act were initiated before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shegaon, who was having jurisdiction. Vidya Ramgir Giri dated 31-8-2020 under section 101 of the MCS Act would indicate that the said person had taken a loan from the respondent No. 1 and on account of default, the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act were initiated before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shegaon, who was having jurisdiction. The mere fact that these proceedings were initiated before the general Resolution of the respondent No. 1 dated 4-8-2019 would not carry any significance as the said Resolution, being an internal document of the Bank, did not have the effect of creating a cause of action so as to permit the respondent No. 1 to invoke the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5, permitting it to institute proceedings at Nandura, in place of initiating the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act at Shegaon. Rather, the above proceedings would indicate that the respondent No. 1 was aware about the territorial divide of the jurisdiction. 16. Even if the initial Resolution sanctioning the loan dated 27-12-2016, is considered, that also cannot be a ground to hold that the cause action had arisen at Nandura for the reason that this was an internal document of the bank and the same was transmitted to the Shegaon Branch to take appropriate action in pursuance thereto and all subsequent actions thereafter, have taken place at Shegaon, including the default in repayment of the loan. It would thus be apparent that no cause of action whatsoever can be said to have taken place within the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 vis-à-vis the present petitioners, who are residents of Shegaon as all the actions regarding grant and disbursement of the loan to them have taken place at Shegaon. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 to have moved the Assistant Registrar, Shegaon with the application under section 101 of the MCS Act and not the respondent No. 5, who lacked territorial jurisdiction. 17. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 to have moved the Assistant Registrar, Shegaon with the application under section 101 of the MCS Act and not the respondent No. 5, who lacked territorial jurisdiction. 17. Hira Lal Patni (supra), relied upon by Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, was a case in which the objection as to territorial jurisdiction was taken for the first time in execution proceedings and therefore, it was held that it was capable to be waived on account of not being raised at the first instance, as contemplated by section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is of no assistance to the argument advanced by Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, as in the instant case, the objection has been raised immediately upon receipt of the notice. Similar is the position in respect of Ashok Laxman Kale (supra), in which relying upon Pathumma and others vs. Kuntaian Kutty and others, AIR 1981 SC 1683 , three essential conditions were laid down regarding the requirement of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, that (1) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance; (2) it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and the cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and (3) there has been a consequent failure of justice, all of which three conditions, must coexist. In the instant matter, admittedly the objection has been taken before the respondent No. 5 and was taken at the earliest possible opportunity. The question of consequent failure of justice, has to be necessarily viewed, in the context of the demarcation of the exercise of jurisdiction, on territorial basis and is a question, which has larger ramifications, for if any Assistant Registrar is permitted to exercise jurisdiction merely on the ground that the Head Office of the Bank was situated in his territorial jurisdiction, the same would result, in all the borrowers who are defaulters, wherever they are placed to approach the Assistant Registrar having jurisdiction over the Head Office of the Bank and not at the place where the cause of action had indeed arisen. The concept of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, if permitted to be given a go-bye on the ground of existence of inherent jurisdiction, then any Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, throughout the State of Maharashtra, would be held to be empowered, to entertain and initiate proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act, even in respect of defaulters, who are not within his territorial jurisdiction, which position would create total chaos, which is impermissible in law. Even otherwise section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the permissibility of entertaining an objection on account of territorial jurisdiction, in the appellate, revisional or executing Court, unless the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. It does not lay a bar, for the raising of such an objection on account of territorial jurisdiction at the Court of first instance itself, which would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objection, once raised. 18. Since the respondent No. 5, did not have territorial jurisdiction and the objection thereto was raised before him, and it has been held that proceedings before him would not be maintainable on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the consequent passing of the RRC in two of the writ petitions, as indicated above, in my considered opinion, would be of no consequence and would not survive and therefore the contention that the remedy under section 154 of the MCS Act, ought to have been availed by the petitioners, in the above two matters, is without any merits. 19. That being the position, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. It is however made clear that the respondent No. 1-Bank shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against the petitioners at Shegaon. 20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.