1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.8205 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8205 OF 2008 PETITION NO.8205 OF 2008 Pravin Ranchoddas Parekh & anr. Petitioners vs. Jai Co-op. Housing Socy.Ltd. Respondent Mr.S.A.Pawar for the petitioners. Ms.Rubia Taneja for the respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 2nd April, 2009 P.C. The petitioner has challenged two orders. By the first order, whereby as there was no separate application for condonation of delay still the Court has condoned the delay of 16 days in preferring the Revision. Considering the fact that there were averments made in the Revision Application showing the sufficient cause and based upon that the Court has condoned the delay, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order in the interest of justice itself as the discretion as exercised by the Court rightly. The aspect of non-filing of separate application in the present case just cannot be the reason to dismiss or interfere with the said order of condoning the delay. It is not the case that there was nothing in writing on record to pray for such delay. 2 2. Based upon the material available on record and specially the averments made in the Revision Application and as there was separate prayer made in the same, the delay so condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case need no interference. 3. With regard to the remand of the matter by holding that the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act, 1960) is maintainable is also need no interference. Section 91 contemplates not only the member (opponents Noone) but the person who is in possession of the premises, through a member, the averments made in the dispute shows sufficient material at least to justify to consider the case of disputant against the petitioners/original opponents. Those averments unless decided finally and unless there is a clear conclusion after placing material on record, at this stage, the dispute just cannot be held to be not maintainable. The Cooperative Court has observed as follows: . "Applying the ratio of above cited case law, in the present case at hand, it is apparently clear that the Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute. Whether the reliefs which are sought for can be granted or not, is total different aspect than the issue of jurisdiction. The said aspect is based upon the evidence led by the parties. Moreover, while considering jurisdiction, I find that, ld. Trial Judge has failed to 3 appreciate that there are some reliefs, which speaks about the recovery of the dues, which are strictly come within the purview of Sec. 91 of the M.C.S.Act. Even though, the reliefs which are sought in terms of prayer (b) and (c), there is no bar to consider the said reliefs u/s.91 of M.C.S. Act. Even though, the reliefs which are sought in terms of prayer (b) and (c), there is no bar to consider the said reliefs u/s.91 of M.C.S. Act. Hence the dispute is maintainable u/sec.91 of M.C.S.Act." 4. In view of above and specially in view of the averments made in paras 1 and 3 of the application under Section 91 as filed, I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of deciding the dispute in accordance with law. 5. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]