ndm 1 wp.823.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 823 OF 2009 Shyam Devram Londhe. ... PETITIONER Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. S.S. Kanetkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. B.V. Samant, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Sunil Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No.5. -------------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 15 th December, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar rejecting the Revision Application being No. 142 of 2007 filed by the petitioner. The said Revision Application was directed against the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the District Deputy Registrar. By that order, the District Deputy Registrar had confirmed the auction sale in favour of ndm 2 wp.823.09.sxw Respondent No.5. 3 Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the procedure as contemplated by Sub-Rule 11(g) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rule, 1961 (for short “the Rules”) was not followed by the recovery officer, and secondly, he submitted that while conducting the auction sale upset price was not fixed by the Recovery Officer. I have perused the impugned order and other material placed before the Court. In my opinion, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are devoid of any merit. Insofar as the first ground of challenge urged by Mr. Kanetkar that 15% amount as contemplated by Sub-Rule 11(g) of Rule 107 of the Rules was not deposited by the auction purchaser is concerned, it was not urged before the authorities below. Such contention, in my opinion, cannot be examined for the first time in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it being a mixed question of law and fact. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, there is enough material on record ndm 3 wp.823.09.sxw to show that upset price was fixed before conducting the auction. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and as I find sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated 24.09.2009, the Petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- i.e. the amount paid by the auction purchaser in this Court, within a period of eight weeks, which direction he did not comply with. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that it was not possible for the petitioner to deposit the said amount. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and dismissed as such. [ D.B. BHOSALE, J ]