Wp 1190 of 10 1 SSK/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2010 Bandu Rau Kamble ....Petitioner Versus Shri Datta Gramin Biger Sheti Sahakari Pati Sanstha Ltd., & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. N. Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Chetan Patil, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Bhosale and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 respectively. 2. The Respondent No.1 filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of loan amount from the Petitioner. The dispute was decreed ex-parte on 18th September, 2001. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte award and the Co-operative Court disposed of this application on 20th February, 2003. By this order, ex-parte award was set-aside subject to the Petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.25,000/- within a period of two months from the date of order. The Petitioner did not deposit this amount of Rs.25,000/- and thereafter, the Respondent No.1 was constrained to file Wp 1190 of 10 2 an application before the Co-operative Court for clarification that the earlier ex-parte award stands restored. This clarification application was allowed by the Co-operative Court by its order dated 18th October, 2004. 3. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the confirmation order dated 18th October, 2004 before the Co-operative Appellate Court. The Petitioner did not challenge the original ex-parte order passed by the Co-operative Court before the Co-operative Appellate Court. The Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal by the order impugned in the present writ petition. The Co-operative Appellate Court also found from 20th February, 2003 till the date of disposal of Respondent No.1’s confirmation application, the Petitioner did not deposit anything with the Respondent No. 1. The explanation of the Petitioner that he could not deposit the said amount because the Manager of the Respondent No.1 was absent was rightly not accepted by the Co-operative Appellate Court. I do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order. Be that as it may, the impugned order was passed in the year 2008 and the petition is filed on 20th February, 2010. The Petitioner has not sufficiently explained the delay occurred in filing the petition. I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any substance and same is dismissed as such. (R. V. MORE, J.)