- 1 - 7380 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7380 OF 2010 Shri Vinayak Laxman Patwardhan .. Petitioner vs The Manager,Shri Parshwanath Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Karad .. Respondent Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for Petitioner Mr.V.B.Rajure for Respondent no.1 CORAM: A.S.Oka, J DATE: 8th October, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. The Advocate for respondent no.1 waives service. 2. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24th February, 2010 passed by learned Judge of the Co- operative Court which has been confirmed in Revision by an order dated 20th August, 2010. 3. The 1st respondent filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies, Act 1960 - 2 - 7380 (hereinafter referred to the said Act). The dispute was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,74,029/- and other reliefs. 4. As the petitioner did not file written statement, the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court passed an order directing that the dispute will proceed without his written statement. An application was made at Exhibit 98 by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order of the Co- operative Court directing that the dispute will proceed without the written statement. Along with the application the written statement was tendered by the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the 1st respondent by filing a reply. By order dated 24th February, 2010 the application was rejected on the ground that the long delay has not been explained. The same is the reason recorded by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench,Nagpur camp, Pune for rejecting the Revision application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the written statement was not filed as - 3 - 7380 talks of settlement were in progress between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. He pointed to out that reply filed by the 1st respondent indicates that the application was not seriously opposed to by the 1st respondent and therefore, the application ought to have been allowed subject to payment of costs. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent opposed the petition. He pointed out that there is a gross delay of six years in filing the written statement. He, therefore, submitted that the Co-operative court was right in not condoning the default on the part of the petitioner. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the first part of the application at Exhibit 98, the petitioner has stated that negotiations for settlement were in progress. It must be noted here that though the dispute is filed in the year 2004, in the reply filed by the 1st respondent at Exhibit 98 it is stated that order to proceed with no written statement was passed in November, 2009. The application at Exhibit 98 was filed - 4 - 7380 on 16th January, 2010. In a very short reply filed by the 1st respondent, it is denied that there were talks of settlement. It is contended that if the court was inclined to allow the application, costs of Rs.3000/- be awarded to the 1st respondent. 8. Considering the fact that order to proceed with the dispute without written statement was passed in November, 2009 and the fact that application at Exhibit 98 was made in January, 2010, this was a case where the trial court ought to have allowed the application especially when the written statement was tendered along with the application. The 1st respondent could have been compensated by payment of costs as the 1st respondent will suffer prejudice due to delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the claim of the 1st respondent, the amount of costs is quantified at Rs.25,000/-. 9. Hence, I pass the following order : - 5 - 7380 (i) The impugned orders are set aside and application at Exhibit 98 is allowed. (ii) The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/-to the 1st respondent. The petitioner has handed over a demand draft in the sum of Rs.25,000/- drawn in favour of the 1st respondent to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The said demand draft has been received by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 1st respondent. (iii) Rule is made absolute on both terms. (iv) Hearing of the dispute is expedited and the Co- operative Court shall endeavour to conclude the hearing before the end of August, 2011. A.S.Oka, J - 6 - 7380