1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.338 OF 2008 Rajendra Narayan Kothawade .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Or. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for petitioner Mr.P.Naik for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18th January 2008 P.C. . Mentioned not on board. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by a communication at page 43 under which the Vishwas 2 Coop.Bank Ltd., Nashik which is arrayed as respondent No.3 herein has threatened to take physical possession of the immovable property more particularly described therein. 3. It appears that the petitioner had availed of some loan from this bank and recovery proceedings have been initiated. A certificate under section 101 has been issued and thereafter, the same is put in execution. The petitioner on the other hand claims that he has paid a substantial sum and is ready and willing to make reasonable offer to put an end to the dispute completely. That apart, he submits that he has approached the Divisional Joint Registrar with an application for stay and an application for condonation of delay. But no orders are being passed thereon and in the meanwhile, coercive proceedings are threatened. 4. After the matter was heard for some time 3 with consent of parties, it is directed that Divisional Joint Registrar shall consider the request of petitioner for staying the execution of the Recovery Certificate provided the petitioner and respondent No.3 appear before him on 28th January 2008 at 11.00 a.m. and argue the stay application. The Divisional Joint Registrar to dispose of the said Stay Application after hearing both sides within fifteen days from the date of appearance of parties on 28th January 2008. Till the stay application is heard the 3rd respondent not to initiate any coercive measures or act in furtherance of the notice at page 43. 5. Mr.Naik appearing for respondent No.3, upon instructions, makes a statement that the Bank would not oppose application for condonation of delay before the Divisional Joint Registrar. In such circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar to proceed on the basis that the delay has been condoned. Petition disposed of 4 accordingly. 6. Needless to state that petitioner would be at liberty to raise appropriate pleas with regard to the validity of not only the recovery certificate but the notice at page 43 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Needless further to state that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter and, therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar to dispose of the application for stay on its own merits and in accordance with law. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)