1 Wp4838.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4838 OF 2010 Sou. Vijaya Ashok Patil. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Jagdish Shripal Arwade & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri T.S. Ingale for the Petitioner. Shri N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondent No.2. Shri S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent and the learned AGP appears for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The office noting shows that the 1st and the 3rd Respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. The Petitioner is the 4th Opponent in a revision application filed by the 1st Respondent under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ). The 2nd Respondent is a co-operative bank. The 1st Respondent had 2 Wp4838.10 borrowed certain amounts from the 2nd Respondent. A recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act was issued against the 1st Respondent on application made by the predecessor of the 2nd Respondent. In execution of the said recovery certificate, a property of the 1st Respondent bearing CTS No.584/1-E at Kolhapur was put to sale. The property was sold on 29th March, 2004. A revision application filed by the 1st Respondent on 1st April, 2004 was for challenging the auction dated 29th March, 2004. Subsequently, another property bearing CTS No.301 “B” Ward at Kolhapur was put to auction which was purchased by the present Petitioner. The auction was held on 9th August, 2004. It is pointed out in the petition that the sale certificate dated 31st October, 2004 was issued in favour of the Petitioner which has been duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. 3. It appears that in the pending revision application, the 1st Respondent made an application on 18th September, 2008 seeking amendment of the revision application for challenging the auction held on 9th August, 2004. Amendment was allowed. By the impugned order, the revision application filed by the 1st Respondent has been allowed and the auction sale dated 29th March, 2004 as well as the auction sale in favour of the Petitioner on 9th August, 2004 has been set aside. 4. Various submissions are made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner regarding maintainability of the revision application against the auction sale and the illegality of the impugned 3 Wp4838.10 order. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that a period of limitation of two months is provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Act for filing a revision application from the date of communication of the decision or the order. He submitted that for challenging the auction dated 9th August, 2004, an application for amendment of the pending revision application was made on 18th September, 2008 which was allowed. He submitted that there is no application made for condonation of delay, and therefore, the revision application could not have been entertained. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent who has supported the Petitioner. I have heard the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 6. Perusal of the application for amendment made in the revision application shows that the same was filed on 18th September, 2009 for incorporating the challenge to auction sale dated 9th August, 2004. In the application for amendment, there is no prayer made for condonation of delay. Moreover, there is no explanation for delay of about four years. Thus, when the application for amendment was moved, a revision application against the auction held on 9th August, 2004 was already barred by limitation. There is nothing on record to show that there was any application made for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the revision application in so far as the challenge to the auction dated 9th 4 Wp4838.10 August, 2004 is concerned, could not have been entertained on merits. Only on this ground, the impugned order relating to the said auction will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is not necessary to deal with the other legal submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner regarding illegality of the impugned order. 7. Hence, the Petition must succeed and I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 22nd March, 2010 insofar as it relates to the auction sale dated 9th August, 2004 is concerned, is quashed and set aside and to that extent, the revision application No.110 of 2004 stands dismissed. (b) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)