44-wp-9765-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9765 OF 2010 Shri. Shankar Bapu Nimbalkar ..Petitioner Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar Co.Op. Societies Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur and Ors. ..Respondents Mr. C.G.Patil for petitioner Mr. S.D.Rayarikar AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. A.P.Vagyani for respondent no.3 CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. Against the Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) granted by the Assistant Registrar, a Revision Application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 154 of the said Act. Recovery 1 44-wp-9765-10.doc Certificate was issued on 18.7.2005. Revision Application was filed in January, 2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has invited the attention of the Court to order dated 16.9.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3994 of 2008. The 3rd respondent was the petitioner and the petitioner herein was the 1st respondent in the said petition. The Writ Petition arose out of orders passed in execution of the Recovery Certificate. While allowing the petition filed by the 3rd respondent, in paragraph 22 of the judgment, this Court has observed that the Recovery Certificate issued against the petitioner has become final and conclusive. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the facts were not before this Court when the order dated 16.9.2008 was passed. 5. In order dated 16.9.2008 to which the petitioner was a party, there is a finding recorded by this Court that the Recovery Certificate issued against the petitioner has become final and conclusive. In January, 2010, Revision Application was filed along with the delay condonation application by the petitioner for challenging the Recovery 2 44-wp-9765-10.doc Certificate. 6. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order. No case for interference is made out in jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Writ petition is rejected. [ A.S. OKA, J ] 3