1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Miscellaneous Civil Application NO.279 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.498 of 2006 Ravindra C.P. Navelcar Resident of Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ...... Petitioner V e r s u s Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Others ...... Respondents Shri Suhail Dutt, Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Respondent no. Coram: N.A. Britto, J. Date: 30th April, 2010. P.C: Heard. 2. This application is filed by one of the Directors of M/s Anirva Developers Private Ltd. for recalling the order dated 23.12.2009 in writ petition no.498 of 2006. 3. The said M/s Anirva Developers Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to the order dated 24.7.2009 passed in M.C.A. No.562 of 2009 were ordered to be added as party respondents in writ petition no.498 of 2006. However, the fact remains that the cause title was not amended showing them as party respondents. 4. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 23.12.2009 and on that date the said writ petition came to be 2 withdrawn unconditionally by the Petitioner, Shri R. P. Navelkar, after a statement was made on behalf of Respondent no.3 that Respondent no.3 had agreed to sell property to one Nageshwar Pandey. The said property was given as security to the Respondent no.1 in the said writ petition and was lastly sold by the said respondent on 20/3/2006 for a sum of Rs.1.30 crores. The Petitioner, Shri Navelkar had filed the said writ petition challenging the said sale order by Respondent no.1 in favour of Respondent no.3. 5. Shri Dutt, Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant (Respondent no.6) in the said writ petition submits that the said property was purchased by M/s Anirva Developers P. Ltd. on 19/9/2007 for a sum of Rs.17,08,12,500/- (Rupees Seventeen crores, eight lacs, twelve thousand and five hundred only) and that the Petitioner Shir Navelkar had no interest in the said writ petition, which was withdrawn without any notice to the said M/s Anirva Developers P. Ltd. Learned Counsel further submits that by keeping Respondent no.6 in the dark, the Petitioner Navelkar withdrew the said petition and, therefore, the said order needs to be recalled. In support of his statement, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Sm. Saila Bala Dassi Vs. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and anr. (A.I.R 1958 SC 394) and Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup and others (2009) 6 SCC 194. 6. I have perused the said decisions. 7. Shri Rivankar, who appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 Goa State Co operative Bank Ltd. submits that 3 there was another writ petition namely writ petition no.516 of 2006 filed by one Pradeep Kaunte, in which there was order passed by this Court on 16/11/2006 to maintain status quo in respect of the property. Shri Rivankar also points out to the order of this Court in this writ petition dated 11/1/2007 by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Learned Counsel submits that in the light of the said orders dated 16/11/2006 and 11/1/2007, the Petitioner Shri Navelkar could not have sold the property to M/s. Anirva Developers P. Ltd. and by doing so, they have committed a fraud. Shri Rivankar further submitted that although the said property is situated in Tiswadi Taluka, the sale deed was registered in Canacona Taluka, which is contrary to Section 28 of the Registration Act. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that he was unaware of the said order of status quo. 8. I have noted herein that this application has been filed by Satish Julka, one of the Director of M/s. Anirva Developers P. Ltd. Counsel for the applicant has pointed to the resolution at page 153 of the file. In my view, the said resolution does not give sufficient authority to the applicant herein to file the present proceeding on behalf of the said Company. It is the Company who was a party respondent in the said writ petition. The applicant is only its Director. 9. As already stated, the petition was filed by the Petitioner Shri Navelkar and he has withdrawn the same unconditionally, which he was entitled to. In case the present applicant is aggrieved by the said order,of withdrawal the applicant is entitled to his remedies, but certainly an application to revive up the proceeding of the writ petition or recall the order is not the right 4 course of action to be followed. In the circumstances, therefore, the application is dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. N. A. Britto, J. Ap/-