Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) 2922 OF 2008 Gurumal Talwar ...Petitioner V/s. Diamond Palace Premises Co-op. soc. Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION(L)NO.2946 OF 2008 Nirmal Gurumal Talwar ...Petitioner V/s. Diamond Palace Premises Co-op. Soc. Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.G.Singh i/b. Legal Liasons for the petitioner. Mr. Matoos for respondents 2 & 3. Mr. Nagendra Dube i/b. Vijay Dhingrija for respondent no. 1 in both petitions. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 19th December, 2008 : 19th December, 2008 : 19th December, 2008 P.C. . Not on Board. Upon production taken on Board. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. Mattos waives notice for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Nagendra Dube waives notice for respondent no.1 in both petitions. As short question is involved, the petition proceeds for final disposal forthwith. 2 4. This petition takes exception to the Judgement and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division on 13th October, 2008 in Revision Application No. 693 of 2006. By this order the lower authority has dismissed the revision application on the sole finding that the petitioner has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 154(2A) of the M.C.S.Act 1960. This finding is criticized by the Counsel for the petitioner relying on the order passed on 16th November, 2006 in the same revision application by the pre-decessor of the present Divisional Joint Registrar. The said order dated 16th November, 2006 records the fact that petitioner has already paid 50% of the dues at the relevant time and it is on that basis the matter was entertained and status-quo order granted. No finding has been recorded in the impugned judgement that the said fact stated in the order dated 16th November, 2006 is incorrect. Notably, the Revisional Authority has adverted to the order dated 16th November, 2006 in the 3rd paragraph of his Judgement, but has clearly overlooked the fact recorded in the said order that the petitioner has already paid 50% of his dues. The view now taken by the Revisional Authority, therefore, is error apparent on the face of the record which will have to be set aside. 3 5. Counsel for the Respondent 2 however submits that the petitioner has failed to produce any receipt or noting in the file to the effect that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the outstanding dues. The fact remains that the fact recorded in the earlier order dated 16th November, 2006 has not been found to be incorrect in the impugned judgement. It is for the authority to re-examine the matter on its own in this behalf and proceed to pass necessary direction as may be warranted. For the time being, the impugned judgement and order is set aside and the Revision Application is restored to the file to be proceeded by the Revisional Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in the said Revision Application on merits as well as maintainability thereof are left open to be decided by the Revisional Authority afresh. The effect of this order is that the original order passed by the Revisional Authority on 16th November, 2006 of directing the parties to maintain status-quo is revived till further contrary order is passed by the Revisional Authority . Ordered accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]