bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4727 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 4727 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 4727 OF 2009 Ujwala Sanjay Khandalkar & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Divl. Joint Registrar, C.S., Pune Divn., Pune & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioners. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 8TH MAY, 2009 8TH MAY, 2009 8TH MAY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners challenge the common order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. He has disposed of 3 revision applications filed by the petitioners being Revision Application Nos.286 of 2006, 94 of 2006 and 95 of 2006. 2. Revision Application No.286 of 2006 was filed against the order passed on 7.8.2006 by the Special Recovery Officer, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises, consequent upon the sale being confirmed of the auction of the petitioners’ property. The revisional authority while disposing of the revision has 2 not considered whether such an order could be passed by the Special Recovery Officer and whether he was vested with the powers to pass such an order. 3. In view of this, the Revision Application No.286 of 2006 is remanded to the revisional authority for deciding it afresh. 4. In respect of the other two revision applications, the learned advocate for the petitioner criticises the impugned order by submitting that the Divisional Joint Registrar has erred in deciding that the revision Application Nos.94 and 95 of 2006 were not maintainable. He submits that such an order could not have been passed after three years since the revision application had been admitted and are pending a decision on merits since 2006. 5. This submission of the learned advocate cannot be accepted. It is possible that the choice of words used by the Divisional Joint Registrar is incorrect and instead of concluding that the revision applications were not maintainable, he ought to have observed that they were infructuous. The material on record indicates that the sale has been confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued thereafter which was 3 challenged in Revision Application No.151 of 2006. That revision application has been decided against the petitioners and thus the sale has been confirmed and the sale certificate issued on that basis has also been confirmed. Therefore, the impugned order with respect to the Revision Application Nos.94 and 95 of 2006 is not interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the applications have become infructuous. 6. In view of the fact that the order of the Special Recovery Officer will be reconsidered by the revisional authority, the petitioners may apply to the revisional authority for appropriate orders within two weeks from today. Till then, the possession of the petitioners with respect to the suit premises will not be disturbed. 7. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. .....