:1: :1: :1: 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 PETITION NO. 6837 OF 2007 M/s. Fernhill Import and Export and Trading ...Petitioners Versus Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and Ors. ....Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 6573 OF 2007 The South Indian Co-operative Bank Ltd ...Petitioners Versus Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.S.U.Kamdar with Ms.Soumya Srikrishna and Mrs.Aarti Banerjee i/by. Little & Co. for the petitioners Ms.V.S. Mhaisapurkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Ms.Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent no.2. Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The office has reported that the statement :2: :2: :2: which has been recorded of the Respondent no.2 in the order dated 19.11.2007 has not been complied with. The sum of Rs.80 lacs has not been deposited. 2. As clarified in the order passed, the court is now at liberty to consider the request of the petitioner/auction purchaser who is challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority. 3. Mr.Kamdar, appearing for the petitioner/auction purchaser urges that the petitioner/auction purchaser has purchased the property at an auction which was held after the Recovery Certificate was issued against the Respondent No.2 and it defaulted in repayment of the amounts thereunder. It is in such circumstances that the immovable properties were put up for sale and after the sale was concluded an objection was raised to the sale on the ground that it is vitiated. The contention was that there is a material irregularity and the sale therefore should be set aside. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that this :3: :3: :3: Revision Application in which all these contentions have been raised is filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar without impleading the petitioners who are the auction purchasers as party respondents. The petitioners are not aware of the proceedings and in their absence the Divisional Joint Registrar has passed an order setting aside the sale. The petitioner has proceeded in furtherance of the sale Certificate and have taken steps by approaching the MIDC for tranfer of plot. Further, Mr.Kamdar states that the Bank has paid a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the Provident Fund Commissioner towards the Provident fund Dues of the Borrower Company. 5. To my mind, when the Sale Certificate was issued and the argument was that there is a concluded contract between the parties, the least that was expected from the Respondent no.2 was that the auction purchaser would be impleaded as parties, and in any event, all these aspects will be brought to the notice of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar proceeded on the basis that nothing has been done in pursuance of the sale. The order passed :4: :4: :4: by the Divisional Joint Registrar sets aside the Execution Notice dated 15.6.2006 and further consequential proceedings. It is rather surprising to note that what was under challenge before the Divisional Joint Registrar are the communications dated 15.6.2006 and 17.8.2006 addressed to the Auction Purchaser by the Special Recovery Officer. Once these communications are on record and the parties who have purchased the property at the auction being identified by the Special Recovery Officer as well as the Divisional Joint Registrar, it was in the fitness of things that they are heard before the Revision Application is disposed off. 6. The Respondent no.2 has made a statement before this court, during the course of arguments after it sought leave to deposit a sum of Rs.80 lacs in this court to show his bonafides. This statement was recorded after I had perused the Affidavit of Ashok Baburao Choudhari, Managing Director of Respondent no.2. The statements made on oath were reiterated during the course of arguments by Respondent no.2 Advocate. In such circumstances, when there is no :5: :5: :5: compliance with the statement recorded by this court as well, this is fit case where the order under challenge is quashed and set aside. At this stage, a request is made to restore the Revision Application to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar. Even if the same is restored, needless to clarify that it shall not be taken up, unless the respondent no.2 impleads the petitioners before me as Opponent-respondent thereto, so also meeting other objections including compliance with Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, if necessary. Petition allowed in the above terms. sd/- *****