1 23caf-159.11 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.159 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1033 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri P.D. Yadav i/by Shri D.R. Shah for the Applicant. Shri M.S. Kadu for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms K.K. Soraan for BMC-Respondent No.3. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.: . Heard Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and learned counsel appearing for 3rd Respondent. This is an application for condonation of delay of 501 days in preferring an appeal against the decree dated 30th July, 2009 passed against the Applicant which is a registered co-operative society. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Respondent No.3 by pointing out that in fact, the Applicant society had 2 23caf-159.11 appointed an Advocate to contest the suit who had appeared in the suit. It is pointed out that even the Administrator of the Applicant society had appeared in the suit. 2.. The application for condonation of delay discloses that by exercising power under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, the Managing Committee was superseded and on 30th November, 2005, an Administrator was appointed. It is stated in the application that the Administrator continued nearly for a period of five years and on 8th August, 2010, the elected committee was constituted of the Applicant Society. The Administrator did not take steps for challenging the impugned decree. It is pointed out in paragraph 16 that the Administrator did not hand over the record of the Society to the Managing Committee. An application for obtaining certified copy of the decree was made on 15th October, 2010 which was received on 26th October, 2010. Thereafter, legal advise was taken, and on 31st December, 2010, the General Body of the Applicant society passed a resolution by which it was resolved to challenge the decree. 3 23caf-159.11 3. In short, the contention is that there is a negligent on the part of the Administrator. The averments made in the application make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. However, considering the length of delay, the Applicants will have to pay costs to 1st and 2nd Respondents. 4. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition of the Applicants paying costs of Rs.7,500/- to 1st and 2nd Respondents within a period of four weeks from today. Payment of costs will be condition precedent. (A.S.OKA, J)