IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (1) Writ Petition (Ld) No.1584 of 2008 with (2) Writ petition (Ld) no.1585 of 2008 with (3) Writ petition (Ld) no.1586 of 2008 M/s Shivani Fibres Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioners vs. Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others ..Respondents Mr.Pankaj J.Das for petitioners. Mr. A.Kamath i/b M/s V.Deshpande and Co. for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 3rd July 2008 3rd July 2008 3rd July 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners undertake to remove all the office objections within a period of one week from today. 2. In these three matters request of the petitioners is that they have approached the Revisional Authorities challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar issuing the Recovery Certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in favour of Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. 3. He submits that in all 5 certificates were granted and orders in that behalf are under challenge. There are four Revision Applications filed out of which only in one namely Revision Application no.40 of 2008 delay in filing of the application has been condoned by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 19th March, 2008. There is interim stay also granted as the petitioners arranged for 50% of the amount under Recovery certificate impugned in that revision application. 4. Mr.Das appearing for the petitioners submits that in 3 revision applications which are now pending, the delay condonation application is not taken up by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Taking advantage of this fact Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., and Subject Recovery and Sales Officer are going ahead with the auction scheduled today i.e. on 3rd July, 2008 at 3.00 p.m. He submits that all proceedings would now be rendered infructuous once the immovable properties are sold. 5. Mr.Kamath, learned Counsel, on notice, appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank states that auction is scheduled after 3 years were given to the petitioners to come forward and settle the dues. The bank cannot wait any longer. Delaying tactics adopted by the petitioners should not be encouraged by this Court. If in one matter they could arrange for money and have the delay condoned nothing prevented them from acting bonafide as far as the other applications are concerned. For all these reasons these petitions must be dismissed. 6. There is no reason to entertain these petitions as they are premature on the own showing of the petitioners. Their applications for condoning the delay are pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar (respondent no.4). Therefore, any order passed at this stage is likely to prejudice both sides as far as the merits are concerned. After taking instructions Mr.Kamath makes a statement that the Bank will hold the auction/sale as scheduled today but would not finalise it for a period of six weeks from today. If within this period the petitioners comply with the requirements of section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Divisional Joint Registrar to condone the delay in filing other revision applications and hear them along with the pending revision application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from compliance by the petitioners. Needless to state that if the petitioners do not comply with the statutory requirements within the period stipulated above, the Bank is at liberty to finalise and conclude the sale and even the Divisional Joint Registrar, then, need not entertain any application for condoning the delay or grant of stay of execution of the recovery certificate. However, the Divisional Joint Registrar can proceed in that event with the Revision Application no.40 of 2008 and dispose of it in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)