1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.589/2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.152/2011 IN WRIT PETITION No. 2805/2010 (Soma s/o Rudaji Mandawkar vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Nagpur and others ) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 14, 2011. Heard Advocate Bade holding for Advocate Thengri, for the applicant and learned AGP Kankale, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Bade has pointed out that after getting knowledge of RRC proceedings, dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, was filed on 31.12.2009 and as it was found to be not maintainable, it was withdrawn on 6.3.2010. Thereafter, Divisional Joint Registrar was approached but he did not condone the delay. That order of the Divl. Joint Registrar dated 12.5.2010 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2805/2010. After rejection of that petition, the Letters Patent Appeal 2 No.152/2011 was filed and that LPA has been dismissed by this Court on 11th April,2011. The contention is provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not looked into and period spent before Cooperative Court needed exclusion. It was further stated that there was a specific contention that notice of recovery proceedings issued by the Assistant Registrar was never served upon the present applicant but that has not been looked into. With the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant, we have perused the relevant record and we find that in Revision Application the fact of seizure of tractor and trolley on 13.7.2007 is accepted. It is further stated that public notice for auction sale of field properties of applicant was then published on 30.11.2008. It is, therefore, obvious that after more than 17 months of the seizure of tractor and trolley and only after the properties were attached, the applicant chose to file dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. This delay and laches are not explained anywhere. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere in the review jurisdiction, Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE sahare