*1* wp.4758.11.916.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4758 OF 2011 Bhupal Antu Shete. ..Petitioner ­Versus­ State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Hiten Venegaokar, for the Petitioner. Mr.Amit B. Borkar, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 7. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 By this Writ Petition the Petitioner is challenging the auction held on 09.11.2010 by the Special Recovery Officer, Islampur Urban Co­ operative Bank Ltd.. It is common ground that the Bank applied for a recovery certificate against the Petitioner and two others. That recovery certificate was sought in the sum of Rs.4,76,715/­, which was granted by the Assistant Registrar, Co­operative Societies, Islampur. He directed that the Petitioner and two others should pay the sum of Rs.4,76,715/­. The Petitioner pointed out that in pursuance of the recovery certificate, the proceedings for execution and recovery thereof have been initiated by the Special Recovery Officer. The Petitioner is a senior citizen. He submitted that one Sumati Chandrakant Wakle applied for loan and she was advanced a sum of Rs.4 lacs. The Petitioner and one Sunil Chandrakant Wakle are guarantors for this loan. The lady defaulted and therefore, the property which is land at Islampur (mortgaged property) was put up for sale/auction. The Petitioner’s case is that from the auction a substantial *2* wp.4758.11.916.sxw sum has been recovered by the Bank. However, despite recovery of such sum, the Petitioner continues to be held liable for discharge of liability and this is impermissible in law. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a revision application being Revision Application No.417/2010 and interim stay was granted thereon on 04.11.2010. Subsequently, the Special Recovery Officer proceeded with the auction and despite such an order completed the same. The Petitioner, therefore, pursued the revision application filed by him, but it was dismissed as infructuous by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 15.01.2011. The Petitioner thereupon filed another revision application being No.132/2011 challenging the sale of property held on 09.11.2010. The Divisional Joint Registrar found that the application made to challenge the sale is barred by limitation. Therefore, the Petitioner made an application for condonation of delay, however, that application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 and fearing that the sale would be concluded, that the Petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. 2 Although the Petitioner would argue that now nothing remains due and payable in pursuance of the recovery certificate, the argument in that behalf of Mr.Venegaokar has been countered by Mr.Borkar. Mr.Borkar points out that the Bank is yet to recover total sum under the recovery certificate. The Petitioner’s property has been put up for sale and it has been sold, but the sale certificate is yet to be issued. If the Petitioner desires to revive his application before the Divisional Joint Registrar, he must secure the claim of the Bank which is to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs approximately. 3 After hearing both sides and finding that if the Petitioner seeks to revive his proceedings before the Divisional Joint Registrar, he must show his bonafides. Even if the delay is condoned, ultimately the *3* wp.4758.11.916.sxw Petitioner will have to abide by the mandate of law and secure the debt of the Respondent No.3 Bank without prejudice to his rights and contentions. If the Petitioner desires to avail of this opportunity, he will have to deposit a substantial amount. 4 In such circumstances, in my view, the interest of justice would be served if the Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.3 lacs with the Respondent No.3 Bank within a period of four weeks from today. If the amount is deposited and a proof thereof is produced, the Divisional Joint Registrar shall condone the delay in filing the revision application and decide it in accordance with law and after hearing all parties. If no compliance is made with the above condition of deposit, the Respondent No.3 Bank shall proceed to conclude the sale and execute necessary documents. However, to enable the Petitioner to avail of this opportunity, the sale should not be concluded by the Respondent No.3 Bank for a period of four weeks from today. No opinion is expressed on the rival contentions. 5 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)