:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET 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. 1534 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.G.Karande, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Tukaram Dattu Kamble, Respondent no.1 present in person. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for Respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The Respondent no.1 is appearing in person on Notice. The Learned AGP appears for Respondent nos.2 and 3. With their consent, the petition is disposed off finally. 2. There are two grievances raised by :2: :2: :2: Mr.Karande, appearing for the petitioner. The first grievance is that the Revision Application itself is not maintainable because earlier the First Respondent approached the Divisional Joint Registrar and he rejected the Revision Application for want of compliance with Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 3. The second contention is that the Revision Application could not have been entertained without the delay of 6 years and 11 months being condoned. There is a serious objection to the same. 4. Mr.Karande, has invited my attention to the order dated 11.01.2001 by the then Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application No. 759 of 2000. 5. The First Respondent appears in person and states that he would show his bonafides in the matter. He makes a statement that within a :3: :3: :3: period of 2 months from today, he will deposit a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- with the petitioner society and produce proof in that behalf before the Divisional Joint Registrar. 6. If the Respondent no.1 complies with this statement and produces the said proof, only, then the Divisional Joint Registrar to consider his Revision Application , but, before he passes any orders, he must decide the objections and rule upon the same. Both objections namely with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Application and condonation of delay must be addressed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Needless to state, that the Divisional Joint Registrar had granted one months time to the First Respondent to deposit the amount. That period is already over. As of now, there is no Revision Application on the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, if the First Respondent complies with the statement recorded by me :4: :4: :4: today, then the Divisional Joint Registrar to consider the Revision Application. If no compliance is made, the Divisional Joint Registrar not to entertain the subject Revision Application or any further requests for extension of time from the First Respondent. Petition disposed off. No costs. sd/- *********