1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.157/2011 RAMESH MANGAL KHANDEKAR & OTHERS ..VS.. VIDARBHA PREMIER COOPERATIVE HOUSING & OTHERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 20, 2011. Heard Shri Potbhare, the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court on 8.9.2004 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of one year and two months in filing the appeal. It is necessary to note that in the application for condonation of delay it was mentioned by the petitioners that they did not receive any notice from the cooperative court in Dispute No.822/1997 and hence they did not have any knowledge about the filing of the dispute and passing of any judgment by the cooperative court on 4.4.2002. The petitioners had stated in the application that they became aware of the filing of the dispute and the passing of the exparte decree against them, when they received the notice 2 under rule 107(5) and 107(11) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, on 26.3.2003. It is categorically stated in the application that the petitioners had not received any notice from the cooperative court or else they would have appeared in the court and contested the dispute. The application was seriously opposed by the respondent. It was stated in the reply that the petitioners had made a false statement as regards the non-receipt of summons by the petitioners about the pendency of the matter before the Cooperative Court. On an appreciation of the application, filed by the petitioners and the reply filed thereto and on perusal of the record and proceedings of the Cooperative Court, the Cooperative Appellate Court rightly held that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners was liable to be rejected. On perusal of the record and proceedings of the Cooperative Court, the Appellate Court found that the petitioner - Parvatibai had received the notice of the original dispute, hence the statement made in the condonation of delay application that the petitioners had not received the notice from the Cooperative Court, about the filing of the original dispute was totally wrong and incorrect. It appears that since the petitioners did not approach the court with clean hands and did not state the true and correct facts before the court, the Cooperative Appellate court rejected the application for condonation of 3 delay in filing the appeal. The order passed by the cooperative appellate court on 8.9.2004 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ Petition therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP