1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 107 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 157 OF 2009 (D) PETITIONER : Jagnath B. Gahurle Aged about Major, Occu. Retired. R/o Patel Nagar, Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS : 1] Khandelwal Kamgar Audyogik Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur, through its Secretary. 2] Khandelwal Kamgar Audyogik Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur, through its Recovery Officer. 3] Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tah. Parseoni, District Nagpur. 4] Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Maharashtra, Nagpur. WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 108 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2009 (D) PETITIONER : Subhashchandra Singh, Aged about Major, Occu. Retired. R/o Khandelwal Nagar, Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur - VERSUS - 2 RESPONDENTS : 1] Khandelwal Kamgar Audyogik Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur, through its Secretary. 2] Khandelwal Kamgar Audyogik Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni, Dist. Nagpur, through its Recovery Officer. 3] Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tah. Parseoni, District Nagpur. 4] Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Maharashtra, Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.K.Tambde, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. K.V.Thomas, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 09th June, 2010. P. C. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the order dated 11/12/2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court 3 dismissing Writ Petition Nos. 157/2009 and 155/2009 filed by the appellants. 3] The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions, has observed that the Divisional Joint Registrar considered each and every aspect of the matter and adverted its mind to the facts of the case before recording the finding that the recovery certificate was not liable to be set aside. In view of these observation, we have perused the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and we find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. 4] Learned counsel for the appellants urged only one contention that the issue of limitation was not considered by the authorities below or by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the issue of limitation was ever raised by the petitioner in these proceedings. His reply was in negative. He, however, submitted that though the issue of limitation was not raised, it being a question of law, can be raised even at this stage. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question of limitation in the present case is a mixed question of law and facts and since it was never raised by the 4 appellant earlier, it is not now open to raise it at this stage of the proceedings. 5] We do not find any merit in the appeals. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale