- 1 - wp5495.08 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5495 OF 2008 Sou. Surekha Suresh Mundada. .. Petitioner vs Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Sangli Branch Barshi, Dist. Solapur & ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. G.H.Keluskar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATE : JUNE 7, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Respondent No.1 is the only contesting Respondent. Hence service of Rule on other Respondents is dispensed with. By consent of the Advocates for Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Nitin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. G.H.Keluskar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1, which is the contesting Respondent. By the impugned order learned Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative - 2 - wp5495.08 Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench Pune has dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No.269 of 2006 filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of about 1 year 4 months in filing an appeal under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the length of delay was enormous. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1 and alongwith the affidavit a letter dated 8/12/2005 stated to have been written by the Petitioner to the Chairman of the Respondent No.1 Bank has been produced. It is an agreed position that the said letter has not been produced before the Cooperative Appellate Court. In my opinion, mere length of delay cannot be a ground for dismissal of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal and various other factors, namely, the reasons for delay are also required to be taken into consideration. Perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the reasons given by the Petitioner in her application for condonation of delay have been considered elaborately. Apart from this, the aforesaid letter dated 8/12/2005 stated to have been written by the Petitioner will also have to be taken into consideration by the Cooperative Appellate - 3 - wp5495.08 Court. 3. In view of this, I pass following order: (i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 9/4/2008 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench at Pune in Miscellaneous Application No.269 of 2006, which is at Exh. C to the Petition is quashed and set aside. (ii)Miscellaneous Application No.269 of 2006 is restored to file. The learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay shall hear the said application afresh. The Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to place on record the letter dated 8th December, 2005, stated to have been written by the Petitioner. All rival contentions of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in this regard and on merits are kept open. (iii)Rule made partly absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)