JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr.Amit Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.B.T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 01.07.2003 passed by the respondent no.1 in Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003, duly produced at Annexure – A and has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order and decree at Annexure-A to the petition dated 01.07.2003 and order at Annexure-B dated 28.12.2017 to this petition, in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay the order at Annexure-B and the proceedings of execution initiated thereupon at Annexure-G to this petition, in the interest of justice; (C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition; (D) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted." 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no.2 being Appeal No.262 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by order dated 28.12.2017. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the letter of credit was obtained against the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.10 lacs being sub-agent of the agent - respondent no.3 herein for distribution as well as providing fertilizer to the members of the petitioner co-operative society after arriving at an agreement with the respondent no.3 for a period of three years and thereafter, the same had been extended from time to time for a period of three years in which, the Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited is the Chief Distributor at Gujarat level. The petitioner is a member of the respondent no.3 and, therefore, the same was considered as sub-agent to entitle for distribution of taking benefits for the members of the petitioner - society, who are farmers of the Gondal area. Considering the described letter of guarantee, the petitioner was unable to recover and deposit the amount in terms of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest accrued thereon on 01.04.2003 to the respondent no.3 as per the account book. Considering the described letter of guarantee, the petitioner was unable to recover and deposit the amount in terms of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest accrued thereon on 01.04.2003 to the respondent no.3 as per the account book. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent no.3 preferred Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003 under Section 99(4) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) on 27.05.2003 for recovery of the said amount with interest at the rate of 12.5%. But, the bank guarantee had not been substituted from the amount, which had been demanded by the respondent no.3. 4.1. Mr.Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the competent Court had not considered the bank guarantee in terms of Rs.10 lacs as well as not considered that the petitioner - society went into liquidation and the liquidator had not been made a party. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 - bank had not given fair opportunity to the petitioner and directly approached the respondent no.1 - Board of Nominees. It is submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit the disputed amount but, the respondent no.3 chose to remain silent spectator and initiated action against the petitioner herein and in view thereof, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr.B.T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 submitted that the findings are concurrently in favour of the petitioner whereby, the order passed in Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003 dated 01.07.2003 is duly confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 28.12.2017. It is submitted that the aforesaid is not in dispute and in view thereof, the decree passed in favour of the respondent no.3 is required to be executed in terms of the order dated 01.07.2003 passed in Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the notice came to be issued by this Court by order dated 21.02.2018, which reads thus:- “On condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.19,39,002/-, as awarded by the learned Board of Nominees, Rajkot as principal amount, Notice returnable on 26.03.2018. The notice be issued by the Registry only on deposit being made.” 7. The notice be issued by the Registry only on deposit being made.” 7. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.19,39,002/-, as awarded by the learned Board of Nominees, Rajkot as principal amount. The notice was directed to be issued on depositing the said amount. It appears that the aforesaid was not complied with by the petitioner and time for compliance was extended by order dated 26.03.2018. Further order came to be passed on 01.10.2018 and before the said order was passed, the petitioner had deposited the said amount as per order dated 21.02.2018. In the said order dated 01.10.2018, the petitioner was directed to deposit a further amount of Rs.5 lacs with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order. It was also directed that upon receipt of the said amount, the Registry was directed to invest the said amount in cumulative F.D.R. in the name of the concerned Registrar initially for a period of six months and the same was directed to be renewed from time to time and that, the same would be kept in the custody of the concerned Registrar. 8. Vide note dated 01.11.2018, the petitioner prayed for modification of the order for extension of the time limit prescribed by order dated 01.10.2018. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities respectively are concurrent in nature whereby, the competent authority, upon considering the submissions advanced by the respective parties, proceeded to pass the order in Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003 on 01.07.2003, which is duly produced at page 17, which reads thus:- “1) The plaintiff is Taluka Union registered under the Co-operative Act and the defendant is Co- operative Society. The defendant society is the member of the plaintiff union. The plaintiff and defendant are the members of The Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Ahmedabad. GUJCOMASOL is entrusted with the work - responsibility of fertilizer distribution in the State of Gujarat and enters into contract with different fertilizer companies to purchase fertilizer. The GUJCOMASOL works as a main distributor of the State of Gujarat. The plaintiff and defendant are the members of The Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Ahmedabad. GUJCOMASOL is entrusted with the work - responsibility of fertilizer distribution in the State of Gujarat and enters into contract with different fertilizer companies to purchase fertilizer. The GUJCOMASOL works as a main distributor of the State of Gujarat. The GUJCOMASOL has appointed the plaintiff union as an agent for distribution of fertilizer to the Primary Co- operative Societies of Gondal Taluka and on that basis, the plaintiff works to deliver the fertilizer to the farmers through the primary co-operative societies of Gondal Taluka which are members of the plaintiff appointing them as a sub-agent. Thus, the fertilizer is distributed by entering into contract between GUJCOMASOL, its District Taluka Unions, Agent and Primary Co-operative Societies for the purpose of fertilizer distribution. In this manner, the defendant received fertilizer as a sub-agent by entering into Fertilizer Distribution Contract, Bank Guarantee, LC in the year 1992/95 and 1995/2000 with the plaintiff. As per the contract and practice, the fertilizer defendant receives from the plaintiff, will be sold by it to the user farmers and the amount of sale thereof shall be deposited by the plaintiff to the union on the same day by submitting draft favouring GUJCOMASOL. In short, the defendant society receives fertilizer from the plaintiff as a sub-agent for sale and it has to deposit the amount of sale on the same day to the plaintiff in the manner stated above. In this manner, the amount showing as outstanding in the name of the defendant with the plaintiff, the fertilizer purchased from such amount should be in stock with the defendant. The defendant cannot use the said amount of sale of fertilizer, excluding commission thereof, anywhere else except to pay to the plaintiff. The defendant received fertilizer from the plaintiff under the contract executed with the plaintiff as a sub-agent as stated above in the years 1992/95 and 95/2000, its particular is as per the account produced with the suit filed pursuant to the bank guarantee, LC Agreement. The amount of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest as on 31/03/2003 is outstanding as per the account of the said fertilizer received under the said contract by the defendant society togetherwith compounding interest @ 12.5% half-yearly accrued thenceforth. The amount of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest as on 31/03/2003 is outstanding as per the account of the said fertilizer received under the said contract by the defendant society togetherwith compounding interest @ 12.5% half-yearly accrued thenceforth. Despite of repeated notice, the defendant did not care to pay the said outstanding amount and therefore, the plaintiff has filed present Summary Suit under Section-99(4) of the Co-operative Act on 27/05/2003 in order to recover the said outstanding dues. 2) The summons of this suit was sent to the defendant by R.P.A.D. and the same has been served and returned on 21/06/2003, which is at Exhibit-7. Thus, summons is properly served to the defendant. 2) After service of summons notice to the defendants, no application seeking permission to defend has been produced within 10 days, none present and no written, oral or any other manner, permission for defense is produced. Therefore, as per Section-99(5) of the Act, legal assumption can be made that the defendant has accepted the facts of the plaint and documentary evidences thereof. Despite that, considering the merits of the suit, documentary evidences produced and facts on the record of the plaint declared on oath: (a) The plaintiff has declared the facts of the suit on oath. (b) The plaintiff has produced original documents at the time of filing suit and compared it with court records. (c) True copy of resolution passed by the bank to file the suit is produced vide Mark-3/1. This suit has been filed by the manager of the union on behalf of the union. (d) The defendant is the member of the plaintiff and certificate thereof is produced vide Mark-3/2. (e) Contracts of the year 92/95 and 95/2000 executed by the defendant with the plaintiff and resolutions passed by the defendant to entered into the said contracts have been produced vide Mark-3/3 to 3/6. (f) Letter of the plaintiff from the defendant asking for certificate of payment deposited in the loan account in question and letter by the plaintiff to the defendant giving details thereof have been produced vide Mark-8/1-2. Notice dated 24/08/1998 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to pay the dues, its UPC, notice dated 11/11/1998 and A.D. slip for service of the said notice have been produced vide Mark-8/3 to 6. Notice dated 24/08/1998 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to pay the dues, its UPC, notice dated 11/11/1998 and A.D. slip for service of the said notice have been produced vide Mark-8/3 to 6. (g) True copy of the account of the defendant of the said transactions maintained at the register of the plaintiff is produced vide Mark-3/7. As per the said account, it is proved that the amount of Rs.19,39,002/- of the plaintiff including interest as on 31/03/2003 together with compounding interest is outstanding from the defendant. 3) The defendant has not applied for permission to defend within 10 days of service of summons, nor appeared. No contention adverse to the facts of the plaint of the plaintiff is submitted by the defendants. When no permission is sought for defense, as per Section-99(5)(d), it amounts to acceptance of the suit and other documents enclosed thereto. The plaintiff has passed resolution to file the suit, the defendant is the member of the plaintiff, transaction is in the capacity of members, contracts of the year 92/95 and 95/2000 between the plaintiff and defendant have been produced, transaction accounts have been produced, notice is also issued to the defendant, both are co-0perative bodies, its accounts are audited. No application for defense has been produced by the defendant. The facts and transactions stated and mentioned in the suit by the plaintiff are as per the documentary evidences produced. Moreover, no submission or dispute has been raised by the defendant against the suit, prayer, outstanding dues, contention of the plaint of the plaintiff. Looking to the transaction of the suit, it appears clear that the amount of Rs.19,39,002/- of the plaintiff including interest as on 31/03/2003 is outstanding from the defendant. Considering all the aforesaid facts, the suit of the plaintiff is proved as per Section-99 of Summary Procedure and rules thereunder and as the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be allowed, following final order is passed. ORDER 1) The defendant society shall pay to the plaintiff union the amount being total of the amount including Rs.19,39,002/- with compounding interest @ 12.5% half-yearly accrued thereon from 01/04/2003 till realization and Rs.6020/- being the cost of suit from its all properties. 2) The plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding of this order – resolution from all type of the properties of the defendant. 2) The plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding of this order – resolution from all type of the properties of the defendant. 3) Arbitration Fees of Rs.6020/- deposited by the plaintiff to be deposited with the government. Draw award accordingly. Pronounced the order today in the open court.” 10. The appellate authority confirmed the said order by order dated 28.12.2017 passed in Appeal No.262 of 2009, which is duly produced at page 21. In the said order, the appellate authority has observed as under:- “7/- In view of the above facts the following issues arise for decision of the appeal. (1) Whether the appellant proves that the permission of the District Registrar under Section-112 of the Co-operatives Act is required to be obtained by the plaintiff union before filing the suit? (2) Whether the appellant proves that the suit of the plaintiff has not been filed in the proper forum? (3) Whether the appellant proves that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the non-joinder of parties? (4) What order? 8/- The decision of this Tribunal on the above issues is as follows. (1) In the negative. (2) In the negative. (3) In the negative. (4) As per final order. // Reasons // Issue No. (1) (2) (3) (1) The record and proceedings of the Appeal Memo and Summary Arbitration Case No. 429/2003 have been read. The respondent union filed a suit against the present appellant for recovery of Rs.19,39,002/- with interest and costs. Summons of that suit was sent to the respondent by registered post as per Section- 99(4) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act vide Exhibit No-6, the receipt of the registered post is produced vide Exhibit-7, it is proved from the receipt of the registered post vide Exhibit – 7 that the said summons was sent on 27/5/2003 and received by the respondent on 20/6/2003. Considering the facts of the summons, although the respondent has been told to appear within 10 days from the date of service, the respondent did not appear before the Board of Nominees, Rajkot, and therefore, the plaintiff union has produced the necessary documents on 1/7/2003 by the list of Exhibit – 8, and thereafter, the learned Board of Nominees has passed the order of the suit vide Exhibit – 9, and while the settlement has been prepared on the basis of that order, the contention of the appellant is that, at the respective time the respondent Society had gone into liquidation and therefore, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the District Registrar under Section – 112 of the Co-operatives Act, but since no such permission was obtained by the plaintiff union, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In connection with such contention, the counsel for the appellant has submitted documentary evidence by the List of Exhibit-21. It contains a copy of the order in S.C.A. No.709/1998 produced with Mark-21/1, which has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 4/12/2006. Considering the said order, in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, as the Additional Government Pleader sought permission to withdraw the petition by placing the order of liquidation passed by the District Registrar, which has been canceled on 31/7/2000, the permission was granted and the petition has been canceled. In view of that, the order by which the District Registrar put the appellant Society in liquidation has been canceled by him on 31/7/2000. The plaintiff union filed the present suit on 27/5/2003. Therefore, the fact that the appellant Society was in liquidation on the date of suit cannot be accepted, and therefore, the contention of seeking permission of the District Registrar before filing the suit under Section-112 of the Co- operatives Act cannot be accepted. Of course, he has stated that even after the cancellation of the liquidation order, the administration of the appellant Society was being done through the liquidator till 2006. But no evidence has been produced in this regard at all. Therefore, the legal contention raised by the appellant has no place. (2) The appellant has also raised a contention that during the proceedings before the learned Board of Nominees, it was not properly served with summons. But no evidence has been produced in this regard at all. Therefore, the legal contention raised by the appellant has no place. (2) The appellant has also raised a contention that during the proceedings before the learned Board of Nominees, it was not properly served with summons. Considering the record produced in that regard, it is proved from the postal acknowledgment that, when the learned Board of Nominees sent the summons of summary suit under Section-99(4) of the Co-operatives Act vide Exhibit - 6 by registered post, the said post was received by the respondent. Even though it appears prima facie that the same person who has signed on behalf of the Society in the said acknowledgment has signed in the present appeal, the contention that the summons was not served during the suit proceedings is contradictory to the record, and therefore also, it cannot be accepted. (3) The contention has been raised on behalf of the Appellant that a claim cannot be made in the form wherein the Respondent Union has filed the suit. Because, the respondent union has claimed for the arrears of fertiliser. Therefore, suit is not of summary type but regular suit should be filed. Thus, it has been submitted that the decree passed is not proper and legal. In this connection, Ld. advocate Mr. Patel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of the Tribunal to Section 99(4)(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Upon considering it, when any dispute for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered, where the rate, quality and quantity are admitted in writing; the power to hear the proceeding is with Registrar or the person whom he has appointed or the Board of the appointed person. Upon considering such legal provision, in the present case also both the parties are registered societies under the Co-operative Act. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the suit of the respondent falls under summary type is also not acceptable. (4) The contention has been raised by the Appellant that if the society fails to repay the amount of the sold fertilizer, the District Bank has agreed to issue L.C. of Rs. 10,00,000/- of the District Co-operative Bank as per the agreement between the parties. (4) The contention has been raised by the Appellant that if the society fails to repay the amount of the sold fertilizer, the District Bank has agreed to issue L.C. of Rs. 10,00,000/- of the District Co-operative Bank as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore, when the Appellant society fails to pay the amount of purchased fertilizer, such amount can be recovered from the respondent District Co- operative Bank and that amount has been paid by the District Bank to the respondent society but he has not produced any evidence in this regard. However, vide list at Exh 21, they have produced the list of disqualified societies for candidature in the election of the Appellant society and in that list Rajkot District Bank has shown the Appellant society as defaulter. However, that question is not the subject matter of the present appeal therefore it cannot be considered. Not only this, considering the documentary evidence produced by the respondent in appeal at Exh 18, the respondent has filed Petition No. 5/2007 in the Senior Civil Court, Gondal. The notice was served to the Appellant in this regard and the xerox copy of the same was produced. Upon serving the notice, the appellant remain present here in this matter. Not only that, the original copy of the Resolution No. 6 dated 10/6/2008 of Annual General Meeting of the appellant society has been submitted. In that resolution, it was resolved that Gondal Union was requested and recommended if it is ready to waive the entire interest recovering the principal amount and interest thereon, the society is ready to pay the same. Therefore, it can be assumed that the fact that the appellant Society is liable to repay the principal debt and the interest thereon is accepted in their Annual General Meeting. In same way it appears that, during the proceedings of the proposal, given the fact that the conciliation procedure was going on between the parties, the appellant Society has sought for adjournment. Not only that, as per the record of Gondal Nagar Palika, the appellant society has agreed to sell the immovable property no. 40, 40/1, 40/2, 40/3 by public auction and collect the dues of the plaintiff union immediately. Upon assuming that, the technical and legal objections raised by the present respondent is unsustainable because during the proceedings of execution, the appellant society has accepted the debt of the respondent. 40, 40/1, 40/2, 40/3 by public auction and collect the dues of the plaintiff union immediately. Upon assuming that, the technical and legal objections raised by the present respondent is unsustainable because during the proceedings of execution, the appellant society has accepted the debt of the respondent. (5) As discussed above, when the respondent had filed a summary suit against the appellant, the appellant society should have appeared before the Board of Nominee, sought permission to defend the suit as per Section-99 of the Co- operative Act. However, the appellant Society did not appear before the Board of Nominees despite the execution has been made as per rules and regulation. In such circumstances the respondents shall not be entitled to defend the suit as per Section-99(5) (a) of the Co-operative Act unless, it has obtained permission in the resolved manner and when such permission is not obtained, the Board of Nominees shall be deemed to have accepted the statements made in the suit application and the documents submitted in it by the Hon’ble Board of Nominees as per Section-99(5)(d) would be considered that the respondent has accepted it. While there is such legal provision prevailing, in the present case the respondent has produced the affidavit of Pravinbhai Ranchhodbhai Kalariya who has made signature in the suit and in this connection, the list of the resolution to file suit, the certificate regarding the member, the agreement between the parties from 1992 to 1995 of the respondent society as per that Resolution, Agreement from 1995 to 2000, resolution of the respondent society under the agreement and a copy of the account of the respondent under the agreement has been produced vide Exhibit 3. Further, vide Exhibit 8 list of communication through letter related to the claim between the parties had been produced from Mark -8/1 to 8/6. Considering all these facts, it proves that the order and award passed by the Board of Nominees is legal and when the case of the respondent does not fall under Section-99(5)(d) as per Rule-41 of the Co- operative Act, the proceedings should be initiated by the Board of Nominees and in its absence the discretion as to how to decide the suit is legitimately given to the Ld. Board of Nominees. In view of all those facts, when the order passed by the Ld. Board of Nominees. In view of all those facts, when the order passed by the Ld. Board of Nominees appears to be legal, the following order is hereby passed in the interest of justice for issue No. 4, which has been decided negetively, in accordance with the fact that the impugned order has failed to prove from point no. (1) to (3) above. ORDER : Order is passed hereby dismissing Appeal No. 262/2009 of the appellant with costs. Judgment and Order dated 1/7/2003 passed by Ld. Board of Nominees, Rajkot in Summary Arbitration Case No. 429/2003 is confirmed. Order and Original record of summary arbitration case shall be sent back to District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot. Order is declared today on 28/12/2017.” 11. Considering the impugned orders, as referred above and the documents on record, it emerges that the petitioner herein received fertilizer from the respondent - society under the contract executed in the capacity of a sub-agent for the years 1992/95 and 95/2000. The amount of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest thereof as on 31.03.2003 was outstanding. The said interest was compounding @ 12.5% half-yearly accrued thereon. In view of such outstanding dues, the respondent herein preferred Summary Suit under Section 99(4) of the Act on 27.05.2003 to recover the outstanding dues. The learned Board of Nominees by the said order dated 01.07.2003, held that as per the loan account in question and considering the communication by the respondent to the petitioner herein, it is proved that the amount of Rs.19,39,002/- including interest as on 31.03.2003 together with compounding interest, is outstanding from the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein also never applied for permission to defend within 10 days of the service of summons nor appeared. No contention adverse to the facts of the plaint by the respondent is submitted by the petitioner herein. When no permission is sought to defend under Section-99(5)(d) of the Act, the same amounts to acceptance of the suit and other documents enclosed. 12. Reliance is placed by the respondent herein on the resolution to file the suit of which, the petitioner herein is a member. The transaction is in the capacity of member, contracts of the year 92/95 and 95/2000 between the parties which is on record. The competent authority has also considered the transaction accounts produced on record, notice is also issued to the petitioner herein, both being co-operative bodies, the accounts are audited. The transaction is in the capacity of member, contracts of the year 92/95 and 95/2000 between the parties which is on record. The competent authority has also considered the transaction accounts produced on record, notice is also issued to the petitioner herein, both being co-operative bodies, the accounts are audited. The petitioner herein has also not raised any dispute against the outstanding dues, as stated in the plaint by the respondent herein. 13. In light of the aforesaid, suit filed by the respondent herein came to be proved under Section 99 of the Act and the same came to be allowed. The appellate authority also taking into consideration the findings arrived at in Summary Lavad Case No.429 of 2003, framed the issues for determination and upon framing such issues for determination, upon due consideration, confirmed the order passed by the learned Board of Nominees. 14. The petitioner herein has not prayed for any permission to defend under Section 99(5)(d) of the Act, which amounts to acceptance and also upon perusal of the documents on record, no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities. 15. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Prakash Shukla vs. the state of uttar pradesh reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 512. Paragraphs 25 to 30 thereof read thus:- “25. The Appellants herein, before the impugned order passed by the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, had two concurrent findings in their favour by way of decisions rendered by the lower courts. The Appellants had proved their possession over the subject land by leading evidence, and the veracity of the same, by way of proper procedure, was tested by both the lower courts. The High Court, however, without evidence being led by the respondents, set aside the concurrent findings vide impugned order and judgment dated 04.02.2013. 26. This Court, in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse. 27. In the case of BK Muniraju Vs. 27. In the case of BK Muniraju Vs. State Of Karnataka, this Court, while expounding on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that the same cannot be used to re- appreciate evidence unless an error of fact appraised by the lower court is manifest and such an error has caused grave injustice. 28. Further, in the case of Krishnanand Vs. Director of Consolidation, this Court, in a similar fact circumstance wherein concurrent findings of the lower courts were dismissed by the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction, held that re-appreciation of evidence under Article 226 can only be done in cases where the original order by the lower court was passed in excess of its jurisdiction or if the findings of the lower courts were patently perverse. 29. It is our opinion that as far as the present case is concerned, the concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re- appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion. 30. It must be noted that the introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.” 16. In light of the aforesaid, the amount deposited by the petitioner on 30.06.2018 vide cheque no.229655 to the tune of Rs.19,39,002/- is directed to be released in favour of the respondent no.3, being the decree holder, with interest accrued to the tune of Rs.8,32,707/-. In light of the aforesaid, the amount deposited by the petitioner on 30.06.2018 vide cheque no.229655 to the tune of Rs.19,39,002/- is directed to be released in favour of the respondent no.3, being the decree holder, with interest accrued to the tune of Rs.8,32,707/-. The total amount of Rs.27,71,709/- is lying with the Registry of this Court and the same be disbursed in favour of the respondent no.3. 17. It is open for the respondent no.3 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to execute the decree passed in favour of the respondent no.3. 18. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.