-: 1 :- wp-5014/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2010 Dr. Mukund N. Savaskar. ..Petitioner. Versus Asstt. Registrar and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. R. V. Bansode for the petitioner. Mr. Prashant Naik for R-2. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 28, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Bansode, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP. 2. The petition arises from the proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the said Act”]. Respondent no.1 vide his order dated 18th February 2009 granted recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act in favour of respondent no.2 and against the petitioner for an amount of Rs.19,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred revision application. However there was delay of more than one year and srp -: 2 :- wp-5014/10 therefore application for condonation of delay was preferred. The said application was rejected on the ground that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 154 of the said Act have not been complied with. This order is challenged by filing this writ petition. 4. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.2 makes a grievance that the petitioner is trying to protract the matter by one way or the other. The petitioner has not challenged the loan amount and therefore respondent no.2 bank was constrained to put the petitioner’s property in auction. The petitioner thereafter by filing the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court initially obtained stay to the said auction. Subsequently, at the instance of respondent no.2-bank the interim order was vacated. Mr. Naik also submitted that since the present writ petition is pending, respondent no.2 has restrained itself from putting the petitioner’s property in auction. 5. In these facts and circumstances, Mr. Bansode, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking instructions from his client – Dr. Mukund N. Savaskar, who is present in the Court, makes a statement that the amount equivalent to 50% of recoverable dues as on today, will be deposited with respondent no.2 within the period of three weeks from today. The statement is accepted. 6. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.2 at this stage -: 3 :- wp-5014/10 submits that if the amount as stated above is deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned above, he has no objection to proceed with the revision filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar on merits. 7. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the petition can conveniently be disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) In the event, within three weeks from today, petitioner deposits with respondent no.2-bank an amount equivalent to 50% of recoverable dues as per Recovery Certificate dated 18th February 2009 as on today, the order dated 18th June 2010 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune in Misc. Application No. 65 of 2010 stands quashed and set aside and said Misc. Application will stand allowed. (ii) On compliance of aforesaid clause (i), the Divisional Joint Registrar shall dispose of the petitioner’s revision [copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-C to the present petition] on merit. (iii) In case the amount equivalent to 50% of recoverable dues as on today as stated in Clause (i) above, is not -: 4 :- wp-5014/10 deposited by the petitioner with respondent no.2 within the stipulated time, respondent no.2 is at liberty to execute the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the said Act. (iv) For the period of 3 weeks from today, in order to enable the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount, parties shall maintain status quo as on today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)