( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5106 OF 2008 Narendra s/o Vitthal Nehate, R/o 172, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon. PETITIONER VERSUS Shree Swami Samarth Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon and three others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.R. Kale, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner preferred Revision Application under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative ( 2 ) Societies Act, 1960 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The revision application was not accompanied by the 50% amount shown under the certificate, issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, as required under the provision. The application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed only for the reason that 50% of the amount was not deposited. This order of the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. The requirement to deposit 50% amount is to be complied with only when the revision application is registered and is decided to be entertained. In the present case, the delay condonation application was required to be decided first. At the stage of consideration of such delay condonation application, it is not necessary that the revision petitioner must deposit 50% of the amount shown under the recovery ( 3 ) certificate. This Court in “Vivek Bhila Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others” 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 93, held that such pre-condition would come into play after favourable decision on the delay condonation application and not before. Considering this aspect of the matter, the impugned order is quite unsustainable. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to restore the delay condonation application and to decide the same first without insisting for the deposit of 50% amount and only after decision of such application and while considering the revision petition, the compliance of such condition may be considered. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP5106-08