-: 1 :- wp-5431/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5431 OF 2010 Sheth Residency Park CHS Ltd & anr. ..Petitioners. Versus The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Mumbai & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. K. S. Deval for the petitioner. Mr. Vineet Naik i/b Khanolkar for respondent no.2. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 14, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. K. S. Deval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. R. M. Patne, learned AGP for respondent no.1. 2. By the impugned order, the Divisional Joint Registrar admitted respondent no.2’s appeal preferred under section 152 of the MCS Act, by condoning the delay of 24 days. By the said order, the stay is also granted to the operation and execution of the impugned order/ registration certificate dated 5th February 2010. 3. Mr. Deval, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and secondly, no reasons are given for srp -: 2 :- wp-5431/10 condonation of delay. He also submitted that the petitioner society was granted registration certificate on 5th February 2010 and therefore the said registration could not have been stayed by the impugned order. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the contrary supported the impugned order. He submitted that the registration certificate was granted ex-parte to the petitioner, which the respondent came to know on 22nd April 2010 and thereafter the appeal is filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under section 152 of the Act. Thus, there is no delay as such. Regarding the stay he submitted that in view of approval granted to the name reservation application and grant of permission to open bank account by order dated 18th June 2009, respondent no.2 has already opened a bank account and inspite of these facts, the petitioner surreptitiously obtained registration certificate behind the back of respondent no.2. 4. The question whether the Registration Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner is validly granted by the Registrar, is the sub- judice matter before the appellate authority, namely, the Divisional Joint Registrar. The appeal is made returnable on 15th July 2010, i.e., tomorrow, and therefore I am not inclined to enter into that issue. 5. So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, firstly, I find that respondent no.2 has filed appeal within the period of 60 days from the -: 3 :- wp-5431/10 date of acquiring knowledge of the order. Insofar as the petitioner’s ground that the impugned order is ex-parte is concerned, I find that notice of the appeal was served on the petitioner on 5th May 2010 informing him that the matter is kept for hearing on 6th May 2010. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had notice of the hearing of appeal, although it was short. One Mr. Shashank Kambale, appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the appellate authority and asked for time. However, the appellate authority preferred to dispose of the application for condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find fault with the order impugned order condoning the alleged delay. 6. So far as the stay granted under the impugned order is concerned, I find that respondent’s proposal for reservation of name was approved. Respondent was also granted permission to open an account and in fact they opened an account and thereafter on 5th February 2010 the Registration Certificate was granted to petitioner society and the petitioner society started functioning accordingly. In these circumstances, the order of stay will amount to bringing the functioning of the society to standstill. Simultaneously, the interest of respondent no.2 is also required to be protected inasmuch as on 8th of June 2009 they have got approval to their name reservation proposal and permission was also -: 4 :- wp-5431/10 granted to open a bank account and thereafter they have also made an application for registration. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (1) The impugned order condoning the delay is not interfered with. (2) The stay granted under the impugned order is quashed and set aside, and instead both the parties are directed to maintain status quo. (3) In the light of controversies raised in the petition and in the interest of justice, the Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to decide respondent no.2’s appeal being Appeal No. 93 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Parties undertake to appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar on 15th July 2010 at 3.00 p.m. (4) Petition stands disposed of. (R.V. MORE, J.)