1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1402 OF 2009 Narendra Jain ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Swapnil Bangur i/b. Mr. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 18th August, 2008 in Revision Application No.543 of 2006. The petitioner claims to own Flat No.10 of the building known as “Shahin Apartment”. He claimed to be a member of respondent No.3-Society. 2. An application for recovery of an amount of Rs. 48,562/- was filed by the respondent No.3-Society before the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner contested this application by filing his reply on 28th March, 2006. The Deputy Registrar rejected the recovery application partly by his order dated 31st May, 2006. A Revision Application was filed by the 2 respondent No.3-Society being Revision Application No.543 of 2006. An application for condoning delay was also filed by the respondent No.3-Society in view of the Revision Application being filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner was informed about the filing of the Revision Application only on 22nd February, 2007. He requested the office of respondent No.3-Society to furnish to him the papers and proceedings in respect of the aforesaid Revision Application. The petitioner claims that these papers and proceedings were not served on him. He was only informed on 22nd February, 2007 the date of hearing of the Revision Application. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the hearing on 26th March, 2007 making a grievance about the lack of papers furnished to him. The petitioner then was informed that the hearing was fixed on 27th August, 2007. The petitioner again made a grievance about not having received the papers and proceedings of the Revision Application and by his letter of 6th June, 2008 called upon the Advocate for respondent No.3-Society to furnish the same to him. 3. On 10th June, 2008, the petitioner again filed an application before the respondent No.2 for a 3 direction to respondent No.3-Society to furnish him a copy of the papers and proceedings in the aforesaid Revision Application. However, no orders were passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in that respect. On 18th August, 2008, the Revision Application was decided by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It appears that on 18th August, 2008, the Revision Application has been decided ex-parte and the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Registrar. However, there does not appear to be any reference to the fact that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Divisional Joint Registrar that he had not been served with a copy of Revision Application or any other material papers and documents. 4. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Divisional Joint Registrar has passed the orders without the pleadings of the petitioner being on record. He has not adverted to any of the necessary facts and has remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar without any reasons. In my opinion, the order impugned suffers from severe infirmities and must be set aside. 4 5. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 18th August, 2008 is set aside. 6. Although, notice was served to the respondent No.3-Society, nobody appears for the Society today. The Petition disposed of accordingly. .....