bsb 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. 5129 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5129 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5129 OF 2008 Mr.Vikas Durzad ... Petitioner v/s M/s.Planarc Builders & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Prashant Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Shinde i/by Mr.Sagar Kasar for the Resp. No.1. Mr.M.S.Karnik for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 7TH OCTOBER, 2008 7TH OCTOBER, 2008 7TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, in Revision Application Nos.13 of 2008 and 14 of 2008. The petitioner is the auction purchaser of lands pursuant to the recovery certificates issued against respondent No.1. These revisions were filed by the 1st respondent who owed some amounts to the respondent No.3 bank. While filing the revision applications, the 1st respondent deposited Rs.30,70,000/- and Rs.28,00,000/- towards the outstanding amounts including the interest shown in the recovery certificate and Rs.3,78,750/- 2 towards 5% payable to the bidder in the auction sale. These amounts have been deposited by the 1st respondent in accordance with Rule 107 (13) of the M.C.S. Rules, 1961. The revisional Court has set aside the auction sale in respect of the property. 2. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, has instead of following the proper procedure of filing an application before the recovery officer, filed a revision application before the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. He submitted that the Joint Registrar could not have entertained the revision since Rule 107(13) prescribes that an application must be made to the recovery officer after certain conditions stipulated in that Rule are complied by the applicant. It is also submitted that the amounts payable have not been deposited within 30 days as stipulated under sub-rule (14) of Rule 107. 3. In my opinion, the petitioner has not made out any case for entertaining the petition. The amounts have been deposited on 1.2.2008 i.e. within the period of 30 days from the date when the auction was held. Besides this, the submission of the learned advocate regarding the maintainability of the revision application is also 3 unsustainable. Rule 107(13) speaks about the sale being set aside on the deposit of certain amounts with the recovery officer. The recovery officer then may set aside the same and repay to the purchaser the money, with 5% interest. 4. In my opinion, there has been substantial compliance of Rule 107(13) in the present case, as the amounts stipulated in sub-rule (13) has been admittedly deposited by the 1st respondent. 4. Writ petition rejected. 5. The Bank will pay the amounts due to the petitioner within two weeks from today.