1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 173 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2518 OF 2010 Mrs. Gangubai Sukdeo Chaudhari and others ...Petitioners Versus Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, Erandol and others ...Respondents WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 174 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2519 OF 2010 Mr. Anil Sukdeo Chaudhari and others ...Petitioners Versus Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, Erandol and others ...Respondents WITH REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2525 OF 2010 Mr. Sunil Sukdeo Chaudhari and others ...Petitioners Versus Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, Erandol and others ...Respondents 2 ..... Mr. M.M. Avhad, advocate for the review petitioners Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for R. No.1 Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP.for R. Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 These review applications are filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court on 29.3.2010, whereby the writ petitions came to be dismissed. In para 4 of the order under review, it was observed that, “entertaining application for condonation of delay would be straight forward to entertain the revision application without complying prerequisite condition of depositing 50% of the total amount recoverable from the petitioners.” 3 Counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dilawar Hakim Shah Vs. Special Recovery Officer and others, reported in 2006(1) Bom. C.R. 141, which takes a view that application for condonation of delay in filing revision, the condition to deposit 50% of the amount cannot be stipulated. Learned counsel invited my attention to para 3 5 and 6 of the said judgment and submits that the order under review may be recalled. 4 On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that these review petitions may not be entertained. 5 Upn hearing counsel for the review petitioners and the respondents and after perusal of the judgment in the case of Dilawar (supra), I am of the opinion that order under review needs to be recalled in the light of observations in para 5 and 6 of the judgment in the case of Dilawar (supra). Para 5 and 6 of the said judgment, read thus:- “5. We are concerned here with sub-sections (2-A) and (3). On a plan reading of sub section (2-A), it is clear that it bars an application for revision from being “entertained” by the Registrar unless the applicant deposits 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues. The section does not bar the Registrar from considering the application for condonation of delay which precedes the entertainment of a revision unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues. In fact, as is clear from sub-section (3), the Legislature has prohibited the Registrar from entertaining a revision if it is made after two months from the date of communication of the decision or order. That sub-section also empowers the Registrar to “entertain” any such revision application made after the period if the applicant satisfied the Registrar that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Sub-section (3), therefore, clearly contemplates that the Registrar can entertain a “revision application” after the period of limitation, only if he is satisfied that the applicant 4 had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. 6 What falls for consideration in an application for condonation of delay is whether the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. The entertainment of the revision is another matter, the occasion for which arises if and after delay is condoned. There is thus a clear demarcation between the proceedings taken for establishing that there was sufficient cause for non approaching the Registrar within the prescribed period and the entertaining of the revision itself.” 6 In the light of the above circumstances, the common order dated 29.3.2010 passed in writ petition Nos. 2518 of 2010, 2519 of 2010 and 2525 of 2010 is recalled. The said writ petitions are restored to their original position. Review petitions are allowed in the above terms and disposed of. Registry to place the writ petition Nos. 2518 of 2010, 2519 of 2010 and 2525 of 2010 before the appropriate Bench for further hearing. (S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/