ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7801 OF PETITION NO.7801 OF PETITION NO.7801 OF 2008 2008 2008 Sou. Sulochana Hirasa Zad. ...Petitioner. Vs. Shri Rajendra Ramchandra Shinde & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 05th March, 2009 : 05th March, 2009 : 05th March, 2009 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Petitioner’s basic prayer is to cancel the entire sale in view of Rule 107 (11) (g) and (h) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short "the M.C.S. Rules"), as the sale proceed was not deposited within the time prescribed by the M.C.S.Rules and therefore, such sale is nullity. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09/01/2006, confirming the sale certificate ( 2 ) dated 06/01/2007 and 26/12/2007 confirming the sale and auction. 3. Admittedly, in Writ Petition No. 6433 of 2006 filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 19/07/2006, as her Application for setting aside the auction conducted by the Special Recovery Officer was rejected. By order dated 5th September, 2007, in this Writ Petition, this Court has already dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that sale has been confirmed on 06/01/2007. However, the Court has granted interim protection of possession, pending the Revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "M.C.S. Act"). 4. The sale certificate dated 06/01/2007 was not challenged. By order dated 26/12/2007, the Revision was rejected. No such grounds about sale being nullity was raised by the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner repaid the amount on 10/11/2008, by that time the sale was already confirmed. 5. As the Petitioner was unable to repay the loan amount, a recovery certificate was obtained by the ( 3 ) Bank. The Petitioner on 27/08/2003 had deposited Rs.39,000/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand only) and shows her willingness to deposit further 75% of the due amount. As the amount was not deposited, a notice for auction of the sale of immovable property of Petitioner was issued on 22/12/2005. On 09/01/2006, the auction was conducted. The highest bidder deposited the amount as per Rule 107 (11) (g) of M.C.S.Rules. On 13/01/2006, the further proceeding of the auction was stayed at the instance of Petitioner. 6. The Application for one time settlement was rejected on 19/07/2006. The balance amount was deposited by the highest bidder on 09/08/2006 and an amount for stamp was deposited on 29/03/2007. The Writ Petition as noted above was rejected on 05/09/2007. Thereafter, the Revision was also rejected as the Petitioner has not deposited the amount in time. 7. I see there is no illegality or serious irregularity conducted while holding the auction. The Petitioner cannot claim benefit of her own inaction. Admittedly, no balance amount was paid in time. He, on the other hand, got stay of the auction proceeding ( 4 ) that resulted in to delay in depositing the balance amount within time, by the purchaser. The Petitioner’s challenge now that sale as conducted and including the confirmation of sale is untenable on the ground of nullity. 8. The sale proceedings if stayed by the higher authority, the mandate of the Rules cannot be a reason to declare the such sale nullity for non-payment of balance amount within time, specially at the instance of the Petitioner who firstly never agitated this issue in the earlier Writ Petition and secondly after such delay without giving details and justification of relevant time obtaining stay of the sale proceedings. If Courts or appellate Authority had stayed the sale proceed, the delay in payment cannot be reason to declare sale invalid or nullity. 9. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the Petitioner as re-agitated in the Writ Petition. The citations that such sale is nullity are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner cannot claim premier of her own wrong. Those are not the cases where sale proceed was stayed by the competent appellate authority. ( 5 ) 10. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. No costs. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner requests to stay the effect and operation of this Judgment for eight weeks. Considering the reasonings given, I am not inclined to grant this prayer and the same is rejected. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)