1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2358 OF 2010 (Nandkishor Pandurang Ruikar vs. Incharge Member, Maharashtra State Coop. Appellate Court & Ors) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 11, 2010. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra with Shri V.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.1, Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 and Shri Abhay Sambre, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 & 8. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 22.12.2009 passed on Misc. Application (CD) No. 12 of 2008 by Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in the capacity as In-charge Court for Nagpur Appellate Court. The grievance of Shri Mishra, learned counsel is, delay of about three years has been condoned just for asking, without recording any specific finding on the bonafides of the respondents, who sought condonation of delay. He has invited attention to assertion in application for condonation of delay that applicants were residing at Akola and got knowledge only when the society notified the adjudication by Cooperative Court. He states that though reason like hyper tension, Blood 2 Pressure etc. are given, no medical certificate in support has been filed. During arguments, he also pointed out that Respondent No. 2 – society has filed an appeal independently against the very same judgment of Cooperative Court and there also prayer for condonation of delay is under consideration. Shri Sambre as also Shri Gaikwad learned counsel, have urged that after taking into account totality of circumstances, the appellate Court has found that delay deserves to be condoned. They rely upon the discussion in this respect as contained in para 8 of the impugned order. The learned counsel also state that the Cooperative Appellate Court has also found some negligence on the part of the applicants and for that have compensated the petitioner by awarding cost of Rs.10,000/-. According to them, the order does not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. With the assistance of all learned counsel, I have perused the records. The contention of present petitioner that the applicants seeking condonation of delay were aware of the pendency of the matter with Civil Court and that they have constructed a house on suit plot and claimed to be residing there, has not been evaluated. In order to find out whether there are bonafides warranting condonation of delay and whether there are just and sufficient reasons, the material on record ought to have been looked into by the Cooperative Appellate Court and if there was any fact 3 inconsistent with conduct of applicants before it, showing want of bonafides, the same needed to be appreciated or evaluated. Apparently that has not been done. As similar prayer is made for condonation of delay by the respondent – society before the Cooperative Appellate Court, I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing Cooperative Appellate Court to reconsider the prayer for condonation of delay in view of rival contentions of the parties. The observations made by this court are only for the purpose of making out the case for remand and shall not influence the Cooperative Appellate Court while considering the prayer afresh. The impugned order dated 22.12.2009 is accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Misc. Application No. 12 of 2008 are restored back to the file of Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court at Nagpur. The Cooperative Appellate Court shall here the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Cooperative Appellate Court may also consider present prayer along with similar application moved by Respondent No. 2 – society. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.