1 wp1459-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1459 OF 2011 Swati Satish Shetye & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar for the petitioners. Mrs. P. S. Cardozo, Agp for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for respondent No.2. Mr. Sameer Bhalekar for respondent No.4. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the respective husbands of the both the petitioners are present in Court. 3. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8th February, 2011 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies. By the impugned order, the Divisional Joint 2 wp1459-11 Registrar had declined to grant interim relief pending a revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 4. In execution of a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act obtained by the 4th respondent Bank, attachment of the flats held by the petitioners was made by the Special Recovery Officer. As per the Sub Rule 19 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, the petitioners raised an objection to the attachment. The objection was overruled by the Special Recovery Officer by order dated 20th November, 2010. The Revision application was preferred by the petitioners against the said order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the second respondent has executed a memorandum of understanding in favour of M/s. Shreeji Developers for development of the property of the second respondent. He has placed on record a photocopy of the memorandum of understanding which is marked “X” for identification. He also placed on record a copy of letter dated 11th May, 2011 addressed by M/s. Shreeji Developers to the 4th respondent Bank. The letter is marked “Y” for identification. The learned counsel appearing 3 wp1459-11 for the petitioners on instructions states that the said developers have already paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the fourth respondent and the said developers are likely to clear the entire dues payable under the recovery certificate. 5. On instructions of the petitioners, he seeks permission to withdraw the petition. He submits that for a period of four months from today, the fourth respondent be restrained from proceeding with the auction of the flats held by the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent opposed the prayer for grant of longer time. 6. The petitioners are unconditionally withdrawing the petition. The flats held by the petitioners have been already attached. It is obvious that if the builder clears the dues of the fourth respondent-Bank, the attachment will come to an end. Therefore, the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners deserves to be accepted. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The writ petition is dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn. For a period of four months from today, no steps shall be taken by the third and fourth 4 wp1459-11 respondents for sale of the attached flats. It is, however, made clear that the order of attachment will continue. ii. In the event the dues of the fourth respondent- Bank are paid/settled within a period of four months from today, it is obvious that the attachment will stand vacated. In the event, the fourth respondent-Bank does not receive its dues within a period of four months from today, the third and fourth respondents will free to take further steps for the sale of the flats of the petitioners on the basis of the order of attachment. iii. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA, J.)