1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1040/2011 (Late Smt. Indira Gandhi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. VERSUS Laxminarayan R. Joshi & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 28 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Nagpur allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 153 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal under Section 97 of the Act. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 10.11.2010, it appears that the Cooperative Appellate Court did not commit any error in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The first appellate Court found and, rightly so, that though the exparte judgment and order was passed against the respondents on 09.04.2007, he had applied for setting aside the judgment along with an application for condonation of delay on 17.11.2008 and the same was rejected by the Court on 26.10.2009. The Cooperative Appellate Court, therefore, rightly excluded the period from 17.11.2008 to 26.10.2009 during which the application for setting aside the exparte 2 judgment and order was pending. The Court then found that the counsel engaged by the respondent was hospitalized on 18.11.2009 and was operated for a bypass surgery at Wockhardt Hospital, Nagpur. Though no documents in this regard were placed by the respondent before the Cooperative Appellate Court, the Court relied on a statement made before the Court by the learned counsel, Shri Dangra himself. The Court held that the reason stated by the respondent for explaining the delay caused was not incredible or liable to be discarded. The Court took a liberal approach of the matter and condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the exparte judgment dated 09.04.2007. The statement, made on behalf of the petitioner, that before condoning the delay, the Cooperative Appellate Court ought to have imposed certain Terms and Conditions on the respondent no.1, cannot be accepted as the Terms and Conditions may be imposed by the Court at the time of admission of the appeal and/or at the time of passing the order on the stay application, if preferred by the respondent. Since the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE