1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3637 OF 2010 Shaligram Kisan Fuse -: VERSUS :- Special Recovery Officer, Buldhana and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 13, 2010. Heard Shri S.A. Mohta, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2, Shri A.H. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri A.M. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Petitioner challenged auction sale finally confirmed, by filing Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The revision has not been entertained, as the mandatory deposit of 50% was not made. The said order has been questioned before this Court. The learned Counsel contends that the petitioner has only raised issue of fixation of upset price and hence such deposit is not warranted. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 points out that the petitioner raised objection 06.11.2009 2 about the determination of said price and he was given opportunity and was called upon to attend hearing on 04.12.2009. He has not attended that hearing and thereafter has permitted the auction to be conducted and also confirmed. Learned Counsel for respondent no.4 states that the respondent no.4 has also deposited the complete auction money. In this situation, petitioner was given one opportunity to state whether he is still ready to deposit 50% of the amount, the learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the amount and petitioner should be permitted to offer a purchaser who will pay more amount for that property. The request is being opposed by the respective counsel appearing for respondents. I am not in a position, to undertake such an exercise for first time in writ jurisdiction, where sale is already been confirmed on 31.03.2010. I, therefore, find nothing wrong with the approach of the Divisional Joint Registrar. Writ Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.