1 wp9198 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9198 OF 2009 Amar Krishnaji Tangsale & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The Karad Merchant Sahakari Credit Sanstha Ltd.& Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ajit Kenjale for the Petitioners Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for the respondent no.1 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 29, 2011 P.C.: 1 On 7th April 2010 notice for final disposal was issued. 2 The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27th February 2009 by which the application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision application made by the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar. On the application made by the first respondent, a recovery certificate under the Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued by the Assistant Registrar. The said certificate was issued on 8th March 2006. The revision application for challenging the recovery certificate was filed on 25th September 2008. Thus, there was delay of more than two years in filing the revision application. Therefore, application for condonation of delay was made by the petitioners which has been rejected by 2 wp9198 the impugned order. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay. His contention is that the petitioner had opted for one time settlement and in fact a sum of Rs.1,41,000/- was paid to the respondent no.1 on 4th August 2008. He, therefore, submitted that delay deserves to be condoned. The learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that there was no explanation for long delay of two years. He submitted that OTS scheme was announced much after the date of recovery certificate and therefore, the revisional authority was right in rejecting the application. 4 I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that in terms of the order dated 7th April 2010 passed by this Court, the amount equivalent to 50% of recoverable dues under the recovery certificate has been deposited with the first respondent. Thus, the condition precedent under sub section 2-A of section 154 has been fulfilled by the petitioner. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant, it is stated that on 4th April 2011, a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- has been deposited by the applicant with the first respondent. It is contended that delay due to fact that time was spent up to 24th March 2008 on the settlement of account with first respondent and thereafter, the aforesaid amount was deposited. Perusal of the reply filed to the application shows that there is no denial of the fact that the 3 wp9198 aforesaid amount was deposited by the applicant. Now, the total amount equivalent to 50% of the recoverable dues has been deposited by the petitioner. 5 A liberal and justice oriented approach will have to adopted while dealing with application for condonation of delay. Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay deserves to be condoned subject to payment of costs by the petitioner to the first respondent. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs. 7,500/-. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 27th February 2009 is quashed and set aside and the delay stands condoned. Revision application shall be taken up for hearing in accordance with law. ii)The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.7,500/- to the first respondent within a period of six weeks from today. iii)The petition is allowed accordingly. JUDGE