:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2005 Chimane Sanmitra Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd and anr. ...Petitioners Versus Mohammed Hanif B.Shah (since deceased) through his legal representative and Ors. ....Respondents -------- Mr.S.A.Pawar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This matter was placed yesterday and Mr.Tripathi appearing for the respondent sought an adjournment. At his personal request the matter was adjourned to today. Mr.Tripathi was appearing for :2: :2: :2: respondent nos.1 a to 1c. It was made clear to Mr.Tripathi that the matter would appear under the caption "for orders". However, despite the matter being called out in the morning session and kept back, Mr.Tripathi has not remained present. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision Application, which was directed against the attachment dated 17.9.2001 issued by the Special Recovery officer while executing the Recovery Certificate dated 4.2.2000 could not have been allowed when identical objections were raised by respondent nos.1a to 1c (revision applicant) and the said objections were rejected on 8.01.2001. That aspect has been suppressed by the revision applicants, in asmuch as, the Revision Application no. 707 of 2000 was dismissed. The contentions were self same and identical. 3. To my mind these objections of the petitioner although specifically raised have not been considered. The Divisional Joint Registrar was obliged to consider the objection to the maintainability of the Revision :3: :3: :3: Application and thereafter go into the merits of the same. That having not been done, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai dated 2.9.2004 is quashed and set aside and the Revision Application preferred by the respondent no.1a to 1c and others being Revision Application No. 515 of 2001 is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the same uninfluenced by the order passed and quashed by this court. He must decide the objections with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Application which have been specifically raised by the petitioner/respondent no.1. With these directions, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. 3. The Revision Application may be heard and disposed off as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four months from the date of appearance. *******