1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2009 M/s.Chaudhary Builders .. Petitioners. Vs. The Dost ‘B’ Building CHS Ltd., & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr.Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Pankaj Das, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 & 3. .... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 24th September 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, CBD, Navi Mumbai, Thane, by which 17 revision applications filed by the petitioners were partly allowed. The revisions in respect of five unsold shops bearing nos. 2 1, 2, 3, 13 & 14 were remanded to respondent no.3 for fresh hearing. There is no dispute that in so far as the revisions in respect of flat nos. 1, 2, 13, 37, 38 and 42 to 48 are concerned, the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 4th June 2007 issuing recovery certificates u/s. 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) were set aside. The Society has not challenged the orders dated 24th September 2008 passed in 12 revision applications in respect of flat nos. 1, 2, 13, 37, 38 and 42 to 48 and the same have attained finality. 4. There is no dispute that at the time of filing revision applications, the petitioners had deposited 50% amount of the total recoverable dues as contemplated by Section 154(2A) of the Act. 5. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that while allowing the revisions filed by the petitioners in respect of the 12 flats, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai ought to have issued directions to the Society to refund 50% of the recoverable dues deposited by the petitioner alongwith the revision applications. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the 3 respondent-Society. It is in this backdrop, I am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the bracketed portion of prayer clause (b). In so far as interest is concerned, the Society shall pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the impugned order dated 24th September 2008. The rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)