1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13705 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7901 OF 2010 Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. "Seva", 117/119, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Branch Omkareshwar Mandir Road, Jalgaon, Through its Manager, Chandrasshekhar Ramdas Sant, Age: 50 years,Occ: Service, R/o. 15-B, Mahabal Colony, Jalgaon ...APPLICANT VERSUS Ashok Naranji Nagada, Age: 52 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Shendurni, Tq. Jamner, District Jalgaon & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel, holding for Shri. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for applicant. Shri. A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for State respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant submits that consequent to order passed while circulating this application, Advocate's notice is served on respondents. 2. Shri. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal is fixed on 28-10-2010, there is urgency in the matter, in the light of interim order passed by this Court on 30-09-2010 in Civil Application No. 13265 of 2010. Respondent No. 2 Jalgaon Consumer Products Vitarak Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon would hand over possession to respondent No.1 Ashok Naranji Nagada, who is auction purchaser and in case this happens, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. The second aspect of the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is in respect of compliance of order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3 09-09-2010 in the proceedings of Writ Petition Nos. 8173 of 2010, 2898 of 2010, and 7901 of 2010, wherein respondent No.2 was to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore) in two installments. The first installment was of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy lacs), which was to be deposited within two weeks and the second installment was of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty lacs), which was to be deposited within period of subsequent two weeks. The learned Senior Counsel submits that an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy lacs) was deposited by respondent No.2 Society but due to order of interim relief passed by this Court, second installment could not be deposited by the Society. 3. Shri. A.V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal submits that the matter is to come up on 28-10-2010 and therefore, there is no urgency and cause of action for the applicant Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Jalgaon to move this Court. 4 4. The thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel is that after consideration of submissions in detail advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant and after thorough hearing at admission stage, order of notice and order of ad interim relief was passed on 30-09-2010. The learned Counsel submits that auction proceedings culminated into sale of the subject property in favour of respondent No. 1 Ashok Naranji Nagada and consequent thereof, approval accorded by District Deputy Registrar (Co-operative Societies) was challenged by the applicant - bank and borrower before Revisional Authorities. The Revision came to be rejected by the Authority concerned. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that as long as registered sale deeds subsist, the right of respondent No.1 - original appellant to hold and possess property, cannot be denied and taken away by interim order passed in Writ Petition NOs. 8173 of 2010, 2898 of 2010, and 7901 of 2010. 5 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and for respondent No.1. No other learned Counsel is appearing for either of the parties except Shri. S.D. Kaldate, learned A.G.P. for State respondents. 6. In the facts of the case and after considering submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal, we have passed order on 30-09-2010. On prima facie consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties herein, we are of the view that no interference is called for in order passed on 30-09-2010. We are not convinced with the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant. The Civil Application stands rejected. . Authenticated copy be provided to the 6 learned Counsel for the parties, on request. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/OCT10/ca13705.10