1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 658 /2009 (Vinod Shankarrao Darwhekar VERSUS The Divl. Joint Registrar, Co-op. Socy. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H.D. Dubey & Shri S.B. Ninawe, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the R-3 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 6, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur on 21.11.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar was not justified in disposing of the revision by the impugned order dated 21.11.2008 by considering the order passed by the High Court on 17.06.2008 in Writ Petition No.2127/2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the auction was not being held in accordance with law and the said auction notice was issued in Pulgaon, whereas, the property is situated in Hingna. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the upset price is also not fixed by the respondents before issuing the auction notice. 2 The learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent-bank, however, supported the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 21.11.2008 and submitted that a perusal of the revision application clearly shows that the petitioner had not challenged the legality and validity of the recovery certificate and was merely trying to stall the further process without revealing to the Divisional Joint Registrar that a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court in Writ Petition in Writ Petition No.2127/2008 that the petitioner was ready and willing to discharge the entire liability and had sought permission to approach the Divisional Joint Registrar provided the petitioner was given an opportunity to pay back the loan in two or three installments. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the grounds which are sought to be raised by the petitioner in this petition do not find place in the memorandum of revision filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The learned counsel for the respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order dated 21.11.2008. I have also perused the memorandum of 3 revision filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is conspicuous to note that the petitioner had not challenged the legality or validity of the revenue certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar and had merely challenged the auction notice dated 25.04.2008. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.2127/2008 before this Court challenging the very same auction notice dated 25.04.2008. A statement was made on behalf of the petitioners before this Court that the petitioner was ready and willing to discharge the entire liability and, therefore, sought permission to approach the authorities under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provided the petitioner was given an opportunity to pay back the loan in two or three installments. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court had disposed of the petition with permission to the petitioner to approach the authorities. The respondent-Bank has placed documents on record to show that the agricultural land which was sought to be sold by the auction notice stood in the name of the petitioner and there were mutation entries to that effect. Documents are placed on record to show that mutation entries were recorded on the basis of the partition which was effected by the members of the joint family. The other grounds raised by the petitioner before this Court about the 4 non-fixing of the upset price and the issuance of illegal auction notice at Pulgaon, do not find place in the memorandum of revision filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Since the revenue recovery certificate was not challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the Divisional Joint Registrar was justified in disposing of the revision by observing that the petitioner had undertaken to pay the remaining dues in two or three installments before the High Court as also the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar found that the dues were not paid though a statement to that effect was made before the High Court at the time of passing of the order dated 17.06.2008. It cannot be said that the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar suffers from any jurisdictional error. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE