1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.155/2011 MOTILAL CHANDAN ..VS.. PRASHANT D. RAUT AND ANOTHER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 11, 2011. Heard Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur on 30.11.2010, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the revision filed by the respondent no.1 under the provisions of section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act against the issuance of the recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act. The respondent no.2 is a cooperative society who advanced a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to the respondent no.1 in the year 2004. Since the respondent no.1 defaulted in re- paying the loan amount, the respondent no.2, obtained revenue recovery certificate from the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society against respondent no.1 for realization of the dues. The respondent no.2 society auctioned the property mortgaged by the respondent no.1 and the same was purchased by the petitioner and certain other persons 2 for an amount of Rs.37,83,000/-. The respondent no.1 filed a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar under section 154 of the Act of 1960 challenging the issuance of the recovery certificate as well as the auction sale. The petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Joint Registrar for dismissal of the revision on the ground that there was non compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 154(2 A) of the Act of 1960. As the respondent no.1 did not deposit 50% of the dues which were payable to the respondent no.2 – society. The Divisional Joint Registrar, rejected the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30.11.2010. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 30.11.2010, it appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar was perfectly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the revision application. It is noteworthy, that after the recovery certificate was issued against the respondent no.1, the society had auctioned the mortgaged property of the respondent no.1 and had recovered a sum of nearly Rs.39,00,000/-. The revenue recovery certificate was for a an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- only. In such circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar, rightly held that the society had received an amount more than 50% of the revenue recovery certificate by selling the property belonging to the respondent no.1 in the auction sale. The 3 submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the 50% amount ought to have been deposited by respondent no.1 before the Divisional Joint Registrar and that provision being mandatory the revision application was liable to be dismissed, is liable to be rejected and as in this case, the society had recovered more than fifty percent of the amount of the revenue recovery certificate by selling the property of the respondent no.1 to the petitioner and the other persons. The Divisional Joint Registrar, rightly held that the bonafides of the respondent no.1 were clear as his property was sold by the respondent no.2 for an amount of nearly Rs.38,00,000/- and the said amount was already recovered by the society towards revenue recovery certificate of Rs.55,00,000/-. Since more than 50 % of the amount of revenue recovery certificate was recovered from the respondent no.1, the Divisional Joint Registrar rightly held that there was no substance in the application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the revision application and hence the same was liable to be rejected. There is no error whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar so as to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP