1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2192 OF 2009 Sou. Shalatai Shivaji Shirseth & ors. .. Petitioners Vs Wai Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd and ors. .. Respondents Mr V.S.Talkute, for the petitioenrs. Mr G.S.Godbole, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 21/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for respondent no.1 and respondent no.11 waives service. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners have impugned an order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court (Mumbai Bench), Pune, rejecting Revision Application No.88 of 2008 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.1.2008 T 2 passed below Exhibit-1 in M.A. NO.5 of 2008 by the Co-operative Court, Satara. Misc. Application No.5 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside exparte Award dated 10.4.2007 passed in C.C.No. 1636 of 2005. The Co-operative Court rejected the application vide order dated 24.1.2008 holding that no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 295 days was shown by the petitioners. The findings of the Co-operative Court were confirmed in the revision. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the petitioners had given different reasons why they could not remain present before the trial Court when the exparte award was passed against them. It appears that there were eight disputes pending against the petitioners and in six disputes, written statements were filed. In two disputes, namely, the instant case and Co-operative Case No.1637 of 2005 written statements were not filed and in both the cases exparte award was passed. In the other case, the Co-operative Court, Satara condoned the delay of about 200 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte award, whereas in the present case, for the reasons recorded in the order passed by both the courts below it was rejected. 4. In my opinion, even if it is assumed that the reasons given 3 in the application for condonation of delay by the petitioners were not entirely correct and that the reasons recorded by the courts below for rejecting the application for condonation of delay are correct, considering that the award of more than five lacs of rupees has been passed against the petitioners and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to the approach of the court in considering the application for condonation of delay in instituting proceedings in the court, in my opinion, the courts below ought to have allowed the application on conditions. In order to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to allow the application for condonation of delay on condition and direct the court below to decide the application for setting aside the Award on merits. In the circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Misc. Application No.5 of 2008 in Dispute No.1636 of 2005 is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit in the respondent-Bank, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount with the Bank, as aforestated, their application for setting aside exparte Award shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. 4 6. If the petitioners deposit the amount, as aforestated, the Co-operative Court shall proceed to hear and decide the application for setting aside the exparte Award within four weeks from the date of depositing the aforesaid amount. Needless to mention that the exparte Award passed in C.C.No. 1636 of 2005 dated 10.4.2007 shall not be executed till disposal of the petitioners’ application for setting aside the exparte Award. Rule is accordingly disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)