1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7800 OF 2009 The Mahaashtra Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Through The special Recovery Officer, Latur. PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and 5 others. RESPONDENTS. Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioner. Smt. S.D. Shelke, AGP for R-1 to 3. Mr.S.P.Urgunde, advocate for the respondent 4 to 6. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. Present petitioner takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur refusing the delay of around 494 days, occurred while filing revision application on behalf of the present petitioner. Order impugned, seems to have been passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur on February 12, 2009 in an revision application No.21/2008. Order is annexure ‘C’ to the petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner sought recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 from the respondent No.3 i.e 2 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur for the amount of Rs. 1,13,810/-. The learned Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, after hearing the parties, issued certificate only for the recovery of Rs. 16,398/-. Petitioner, therefore, was required to file revision application for the amount, for which certificate under section 101 was refused by the Learned Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur. This revision application was delayed by 494 days and request for condonation of delay has been rejected. 4. Two grounds were raised before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur for condonation of delay. First was the ground of non communication of the decision, pertaining to proceedings under section 101 by the learned Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Second ground pleaded is leaving the service by official concerned of the petitioner, who was entrusted this job, to pursue the proceeding, pending before the learned Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur. 5. Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur has considered the grounds raised and after finding that there is no substance in the grounds raised, justifiably rejected the application seeking condonation of delay. He submitted that, learned Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies issued recovery certificate after hearing the parties, with direction to deposit some amount. After issuance of certificate, they have deposited amount under certificate with the petitioner. According to him, there is no substance in this petition. Petition be rejected. 3 6. I have given anxious consideration to the submission of the counsel for the parties, including learned A.G.P. I have perused order impugned. 7. “Sufficient cause’, an expression appearing in section 5 of the Limitation Act has been considered by this Court and Honourable Supreme Court time and again. If subordinate court is exercising discretion by condoning delay, in a appropriate case, superior court may not upset the order unless said order is perverse or if it is proved that party seeking condonation of delay was resorted to delaying tactics or had done so for getting some advantage. However, if such discretion is justifiably exercised, superior court may not upset the order. It is so held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balkrishnan V/s M. Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 S.C. page 3222. Paragraph No.9 is relevant which is reproduced herein below :- “9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometime delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court 4 refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.” 8. In my view, learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur, ought to have condone the delay. Respondents No. 4 to 6 are put to some inconvenience. Care can be taken by saddling appropriate costs. 9. Writ Petition is allowed. Order impugned is quashed and set aside. Delay occurred in filing revision application around 494 days stands condoned, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) by the present petitioner payable to the respondents No.4 to 6. Costs to be deposited in this Court within two weeks’. On deposit of such costs respondents No. 4 to 6 are permitted to withdraw said amount from this Court. 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur shall hear the parties and decide the revision application in accordance with the provisions of law. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ..... aaa/7800.09