1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. V. B. Patil for Petitioner, Advocate Shri M.S. Deshmukh for Respondent No.2 and 3, learned A.G.P. Smt. Shinde for Respondent No.1 and Advocate Mr. S. P. Deshmukh for Respondent No.5. Nobody has appeared for Respondent nO.4 though he is served. 2. Mr. Deshmukh has pointed out that Respondent No.4 had earlier filed Writ Petition No.8802 of 2010 in very same subject matter and that was not entertained by this Court. 3. Short contention of Advocate Mr. Patil in present matter is, the mortgage deed in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was executed by grandfather of Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 and father-in-law of Petitioner No.1. Said grandfather expired on 31st March, 2005 and, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. thereafter, sometime in the year 2007 the proceedings under section 101 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were initiated. In those proceedings R.R.C. came to be issued on 27th August, 2007 and in pursuance of that R.R.C. now properties belonging to and in possession of present petitioners are sought to be auctioned. Argument is that R.R.C. bis issued against dead persons is nullity and all actions taken in furtherance thereof must be quashed and set aside. 4. Apart from contention that there already was a writ petition at the instance of borrower before this Court. Shri Deshmukh has urged that mortgage deed is not in dispute and relationship with deceased is also not in dispute. He invites attention to notice dated 21st October, 2009 issued at the instance of present petitioners to urge that on 21st October, 2009 all these developments 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. were within the knowledge of the parties and still they have not chosen to act immediately and present petition has been filed almost one year thereafter. In view of the rejection of earlier petition and this delay, he contends that parties should be left free to take recourse to alternate remedy available under Rule 107 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 or section 154 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. He also invites attention to civil suit already filed by petitioners before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. He, however, states that properties mentioned therein are not the properties mortgaged by grandfather in favour of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. The fact that mortgaged properties are already attached on 11th December, 2009 is not in dispute. Issuance of legal notice by present petitioners on 21st October, 2009 is 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. also not in dispute. Then, present petition appears to have been filed on or after 13th August, 2010 i.e. almost one year and after acquiring knowledge. The borrower/ Respondent No.4 had already filed writ petition No.8802 of 2010 before this Court and this Court has not entertained it. 6. In this situation, I do not find it necessary to go into more details. The petitioners can be permitted to raise their grievance before Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 shall look into that grievance independently and uninfluenced by R.R.C. already issued by it and other subsequent developments. If he finds anything wrong with issuance of R.R.C., including its being vitiated as action has been taken against dead person, he will pass fresh orders in that respect. 7. The R.R.C. is not being set aside by this Court only to safeguard interest of 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 8177 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as petitioners have approached this Court belatedly. The attachment of mortgaged property effected on 1st December, 2009 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of mortgage deed, shall also continue. However, this continuation shall not influence Respondent No.1 Deputy Registrar while considering the grievance of present petitioners. Petitioners are directed to appear before Respondent No.1 Deputy Registrar on 5th May, 2011 and the Respondent No.1 shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders in the matter as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. Subject to this, writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:20/04/2011. ans/8177