: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. 6399 OF 2007 Shri. Datta Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadeed (Chinchwad) and anr. ...Petitioners Versus Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. ....Respondents ====== P.D.Dalvi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Killedar Adv. for respondent no.1. Ms.V.S.Mhaisapurkar, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 29th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Minister of State for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile, Government of Maharashtra in Revision Application No. 292 of 2007. 2. By the order passed on 17.7.2007, the Minister has quashed and set aside the orders dated 5.6.2007 of :2: :2: :2: the Additional Commissioner Co-operative Societies, so also, of the Special Recovery Officer. 3. The Revision Application upon which an order has been passed by the Minister was at the instance of the original borrower. The original borrower had complained to the learned Revisional Authority that the sale of the properties which have been attached in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate is contrary to the law laid down by the court, inasmuch as, the upset price was not determined and fixed in accordance with the prevailing market value. 4. The Finance Society (Pat Sanstha) which has lent and advanced the monies and which attached the properties in execution of the Recovery Certificate has challenged this order. 5. The original borrower/first respondent before me appeared on notice. On 15.1.2008 I had recorded the statement of Mr.Killedar to this effect that the first respondent is desirous of paying off the dues, but, requires some time to do so on account of his medical :3: :3: :3: condition. 6. The first respondent who has been advised bed rest has through his representative so also personally informed the court that he would clear off the entire dues of the first petitioner within a period of three months from today. 7. Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners would have no objection if within this period the loans are cleared off. If the dues are cleared off as undertaken, then, all subsequent proceedings do not survive. 8. In the peculiar facts of this case and considering the medical condition of the first respondent, three months time is granted as requested. If the amounts which are outstanding or due and payable alongwith interest are not paid within this period, then, it would be open for the petitioners to proceed to sell the properties which have been attached. However, for a period of three months, they shall not take any steps in that behalf. It is clarified that :4: :4: :4: the attachment will continue and it would be open for the first respondent to apply for raising the same after the payment is made as stated before this court. 9. In the light of this agreement between the parties, at this stage, it is not necessary to scrutinise the legality and validity of the order under challenge. Petition is disposed off. No costs. 10. A copy of the communication of the first respondent addressed to Mr.Killedar is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. sd/- *****