bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6714 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6714 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6714 OF 2008 Shri Bhagvan Chandulal Pardeshi & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Shri Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur ... Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6728 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6728 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6728 OF 2008 Sou.Madhavi Bhagvan Pardeshi & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Shri Vasantrao Chougule, Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Paryadit, Kolhapur ... Respondent AND AND AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6730 OF 2008 Shri Bhagvan Chandulal Pardeshi & ors. ... Petitioners V/S Shri Vasantrao Chougule Nagari Sah. Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur ... Respondent Mr.Amit B. Borkar for the petitioners in all petitions. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the respondent in all petitions. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 3RD OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 2 20.9.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in the revision applications filed by the petitioners. These revisions were filed against the order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Kolhapur. On 27.11.2007 an application was moved by the petitioners to set aside the order of "No W.S." passed against them. They sought permission to take on record their written say as well as to permit them to cross-examine the witnesses of the disputants i.e. the respondents herein. The Judge, Co-operative Court has held that the petitioners had not made out any ground for recalling the order. The petitioners had not accepted notice deliberately and, therefore, they could not contend that they have no knowledge of the pending dispute i.e. the application. This order has been upheld by the appellate authority in revision. 2. It is true that both the Courts below have found that the petitioners were served. However, this finding is based on the presumption that the postal endorsement "not claimed" would be sufficient to presume service because the endorsement "I.D." also found on the packet would indicate that there was service on the petitioner. 3. In my opinion, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to 3 set aside the order "No W.S." passed by the Co-operative Court on condition that the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs.20 lacs in the Co-operative Court together in all the disputes, within three months from today. In case this amount is deposited, the Co-operative Court will allow the petitioners to file their written statement. The Court will also permit parties to lead evidence in the matter. 4. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of.