1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.465 OF 2010. Shri Dnyaneshwar Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co- Op.Societies and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010. Heard Mr.A.M.Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.B.Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.5, Learned AGP Shri Thakre for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Adv.Tambde for respondent no.3. Perusal of writ petition shows that the petitioner Society is challenging orders passed on 13/1/2005 by District Deputy Registrar refusing confirmation of sale, and orders of Divisional Joint Registrar dated 2/1/2997 dismissing revision filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation. Only explanation given by the Society is in paragraph – 10 of the writ petition, which shows that respondent no.4 – Recovery Officer had assured Society that Society should not worry and his federation would take appropriate steps for challenging the impugned orders. The present writ petition has been filed on 29/1/2010. Thus, delay or laches have not been explained 2 satisfactorily. The petitioner being Society, assurance by respondent no.4 or then correspondence, if any, made by it with respondent no.4 in that respect is ought to have been produced on record. Not only this, even after noticing that the revision has been dismissed as barred by limitation neither petitioner nor respondent no.4 have chosen to wake up and to take appropriate steps. The petitioner-Society has filed present revision only after directions under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were issued to it. Advocate A.B.Mirza, learned counsel for respondent no.5 - auction purchaser has pointed that auction purchaser was found to be highest bidder and after complying with the legal provisions, he has purchased the property. Respondent no.5 was not joined as party before any of the lower authorities and he has learnt about all these development only after receipt of notice of this writ petition. Advocate Tambde, learned counsel for respondent no.3 – guarantor, has stated that the amount as ordered by the District Deputy Registrar is already deposited with the Bank and the property auctioned should have been delivered back to the borrower. He disputes all contentions of Advocate Mirza in the matter. In this writ petition filed by Society, it is not necessary to consider grievance of respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 may raise that grievance independently and it can be dealt with as and when so raise as per law. As I find that the petitioner has not explained the delay and laches in the matter, the writ petition is not 3 entertained. Same is accordingly rejected. No costs. Advocate Mirza states that respondent no.5 has, after purchase, spent huge amount and raised some additional construction. He, therefore, seeks continuation of interim order for reasonable period to take appropriate steps in the matter. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that the interim order should not be continued. In the circumstances, the interim orders operating in this writ petition till today are continued for further period of three weeks. However, respondent no.5 shall not create any other encumbrances on or third party interest in the property in question till then. JUDGE Chute