1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 9805 OF 2009 Vimla Jaichand Bhandari .. Petitioner Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-oprative Societies & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Jaychand Bhandari, the husband of the Petitioner present for the petitioner. Mr. N. Walawalkar with Harindar Toor i/b Mr. Subhash Bane for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. D. H. Mehta i/b Mrs. Swati C. Sawant for Respondent No.5. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. Date : 25th February, 2010. P.C. This petition initially typed on 3rd November, 2009 which is later amended to read 9th November, 2009 challenges the order in revision passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division on 13th November, 2009. This order came to be passed in Revision Application against a recovery certificate issued on 12.12.2006 in respect of loan taken by the petitioner’s son in March, 2001. The property in dispute came to be mortgaged by the petitioner’s son which was witnessed by 2 petitioner and her husband. Upon the recovery certificate being issued the property was attached on 03.08.2007 and a notice was published in the newspapers for auction on 27.06.2009 and again on 21.07.2009. On 13.08.2009 the auction was held upon the reserved price of Rs.44.64 lacs for the highest offer of Rs.56.50 lacs. The entire amount came to be paid by the auction purchaser on 27.08.2009 and the sale certificate came to be issued on 09.09.2009. The possession was to be taken of the mortgage premises on 05.10.2009. 2. The petitioner and/or her son offered to pay Rs. 5.5 lacs by a xerox copy of post dated cheque which was forwarded to the bank two days prior to the auction. The petitioner, her son as well as her husband signed a letter in favour of the bank requesting time to vacate on 05.10.2009 and possession was to be taken. They confirmed that the symbolic possession was taken and was granted time to hand over actual possession. 3. However, revision application came to be filed 3 which came to be dismissed and which is impugned in this petition. 4. Prior to this petition the petitioner herself as well as her son have filed other writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2009 came to be withdrawn. In Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2009 strictures have been passed with regard to the petitioner’s conduct. In this petition the petitioner applied for time to deposit the amount of the outstanding loan. She was given time to deposit within two weeks, which having not been deposited, the petition stood dismissed. 5. The petitioner’s husband states that on 05.10.2009 when possession was sought to be taken from them, it was raining and they were drenched. The bank forcibly took the letter from them. Their Advocate was not allowed to represent them. This transpired about 4 to 5 months before today. On 05.10.2009 there had been no rain in the city. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Court in any earlier writ petition filed. 4 6. The loan taken by the petitioner’s son is not disputed. The mortgage of the premises is also not disputed. The default in repayment is also not disputed. The challenge to the recovery certificate which is impugned in this petition has been rightly dismissed. The auction sale has not been challenged. Issue of sale certificate has also not been challenged. Amount more than the reserved price has been paid. The symbolic possession is seen to have been and had to have been handed over. 7. Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of disputed premises. The auction purchaser is entitled to receive possession of the premises consequent upon the due procedure established by law having been followed in respect of auction sale. The Court Receiver shall forthwith hand over actual vacant possession of the disputed premises sold under the auction sale to the auction purchaser after vacating the petitioner her son and her husband being the debtor and his servants and agents from the disputed premises with the assistance of the relevant police station, if required. The petitioner shall be entitled to 5 withdraw whatever amount that has been deposited by her to the credit of this writ petition as per interim orders passed. 8. The writ petition is completely without merit and hence dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)