KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2006 Badriprasad Bhoruka Family Trust ... Appellant vs. Sudhakar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and another ..Respondents Mr. Roham Cama, instructed by Mr. T.N. Tripathi, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Singh, instructed by M/s. Indian Law for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: JULY 11, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 16, 2006, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition NO. 6497 of 2006. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, original petitioner, on the ground that the appellant is not a party before the concerned authority and the intervention application filed by the appellant is still pending. The grievance of the appellant is that the authority has committed an error in admitting the revision application as the same was beyond the period of limitation and the condonation application was not adjudicated on merits and without deciding the condonation application, order of admission is passed by the authority which can be said to be a wrong KPP -2- admission of the matter. In our view, the learned single Judge has rightly found that since the appellant has not yet been joined as a party respondent as his intervention application is pending, he cannot make any grievance on this point. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that his intervention application is already heard and is awaiting the decision at the hands of the Deputy District Registrar. 2. In our view, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, that till the appellant is allowed to intervene in the main proceedings before the authority, he cannot challenge the order passed by the authority regarding admission of the revision application. In case, the intervention application of the appellant is allowed, it will be open to the appellant to submit his pleadings before the authority and at that time he can raise the point about legality of the order of admission passed by the authority. It is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that till delay is not condoned, the authority may not get jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits. However, in case the appellant is allowed to intervene in the matter by allowing the application by the authority, at that stage the appellant herein is entitled to file appropriate application in the proceedings. If any application is preferred thereafter by the appellant before the authority, the authority shall consider as to whether the order of admission was rightly passed without condoning the delay. All these points are kept open, in case the intervention application is decided in favour of the appellant. The KPP -3- intervention application may be decided expeditiously as it is informed that it is kept for orders and appropriate order may be passed latest by 30th July, 2011. Whatever may be the decision, the same may be communicated to the appellant without any further delay. 3. Subject to what is stated above, the appeal is disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.