1 65 wp.7227.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7227 OF 2010 M/s.Sterling Tower Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Kokila N. Kotak and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. P.J.Thorat for the Petitioner. Ms Archana Khan for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 to 6. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21 st July, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the leaned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 On 23 rd September, 2010, notice for final disposal was issued by this Court. 3 The Petitioner – Society preferred a revision application 2 65 wp.7227.10 under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) before the District Deputy Registrar for challenging the order dated 4 th April, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Society by which application made by the Petitioner under Section 101 of the said Act has been dismissed. By the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay in preferring revision application has been dismissed. 4 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in application for condonation of delay, there was adequate explanation for delay of 18 months. He submitted that the District Deputy Registrar has taken a very hyper-technical view of the matter. 5 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 opposed the petition by contending that the Petitioner has taken a dishonest stand. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that the Advocate appointed by the Petitioner was busy in Supreme Court matter is no ground to condone the delay. 3 65 wp.7227.10 Her submission is that the Petitioner wants to harass the widow and the legal representatives of the original borrower. The learned AGP appearing for rest of the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order. 6 I have carefully considered the submissions. In the application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has stated thus: “a) That one Advocate M/s. Bansal & Bansal were handing the matter under section 101 of MCS Act, 1960 for the recovery of Rs.3,90,488/- before the Deputy Registrar, K/West Ward, however the entire claim of application have been rejected and the society was received the copy of the order on or about 20.4.2006. However, thereafter the said Advocate was not available for filling the Revision Application as he was busy with Supreme Court matter. b) That in the month of November, 2006 the new managing committee of the society was elected, however, as there was communication gap between the newly elected office bearers and the previous advocate no decision has been taken in the matter for considerable time period. c) That the society was unable to file revision application as society was not aware that who are the Legal heirs for long time as opponent did not disclosed the names of legal here. d) That the Opponents above named Smt. Kokila N. Kotak and her two sons repeatedly approached to the newly elected managing committee and promised that they 4 65 wp.7227.10 will settle the matter, however they only consumed the considerable time and failed to settle the matter. e) That very recently a new Advocate has been appointed to handle the matter and accordingly the Revision Application is filed before this Hon'ble Authorities.” 7 Perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Deputy Registrar shows that only one ground out of the several grounds set out in the application has been considered. The District Deputy Registrar has considered only one ground regarding unavailability of the Advocate appointed by the Petitioner. Apart from the said ground, the grounds (b), (c) and (d) as above were set out in the application and the same have not been dealt with at all. The grounds (b), (c) and (d) contain adequate explanation for the delay. 8 It is well settled that the Authorities are required to adopt a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. This was a case where delay ought to have been condoned. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 could have been always compensated by ordering payment of appropriate costs. 5 65 wp.7227.10 9 The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 10 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 17 th June, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the application for condonation of delay made by the Petitioner is allowed subject to the Petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 within a period of six weeks from today. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. ii. The petition is allowed on above terms. [ A.S.OKA, J ]