1 903 wp.8730.09 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8730 OF 2009 Sahayog Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Mrs. Meena Mandal Gupta and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. S.A.Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S.Dhadge i/b Mr.A.S.Desai for Respondent No.1. Ms Prachi Khamkar i/b Mr. R.V.Sankpal to Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24 th August, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 as well as the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and 7. 2 A recovery certificate granted in favour of the Petitioner under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) was sought to be executed in which 2 903 wp.8730.09 certain properties was attached. An objection was raised to the attachment by certain Respondents by filing an objection before the Special Recovery Officer. The objection was overruled. Being aggrieved by the order of the Special Recovery Officer, the Respondent No.1 preferred a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act. The said revision application has been allowed by the impugned order. 3 The first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner – Society which was holding the recovery certificate, which was under execution was not impleaded as a party to the revision application and only the Special Recovery Officer was impleaded as a party. He submitted that though the Special Recovery Officer raised an objection in writing on account of non-joinder of the Petitioner, the said objection has been brushed aside by holding that the society could have intervened. He submitted that the impugned order is otherwise bad in law. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment and 3 903 wp.8730.09 order. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. On the application made by the Petitioner – credit society, a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act was granted. The recovery certificate was being executed by the Special Recovery Officer. To the revision application preferred by the Respondent No.1, it was the Petitioner – credit society, which was the real contesting party being the holder of the recovery certificate. The Divisional Joint Registrar ought to have issued notice to the Petitioner – Society before deciding the revision application on merits. Only on this ground, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 22 nd May, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application No.209 of 2007 is restored to the filed of the Divisional Joint Registrar ; ii. The Respondent No.1 is directed to implead the 4 903 wp.8730.09 Petitioner as a party - Respondent No.2 to the revision application by carrying out necessary amendment ; iii. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 26 th September, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. for deciding the schedule of hearing; iv. Hearing of the revision application is expedited ; v. If there was any interim relief operative in the revision application, the same also stands restored ; vi. The Writ Petition is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs ; vii. All contentions of the parties on merits of the revision application are kept open; and viii. The Revisional Authority to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. [ A.S.OKA, J ]