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. 5056 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5056 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5056 OF 2008 Rajkumar Hari Gadgil & anr. ... Petitioners v/s Vadgaon Saraf Vyapari Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Mydt. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioners. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sameer Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.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 petition challenges the order dated 25.6.2008 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners. The revision has been filed challenging the auction sale held on 20.6.2008 and the letter issued by the Estate Recovery Officer dated 20.6.2008. The revisional authority has dismissed the revision by observing that since there was no compliance of Section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, (in short, M.C.S.Act) the revision is required to be dismissed. 2 2. The challenge of the petitioners was not to the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the M.C.S. Act but to the auction sale. If the revision is filed against a certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101, then under sub-section (2A) of Section 154, it cannot be entertained unless the applicant deposits with the Society 50% of the amount of the total dues recovered. 3. In the present case, the challenge of the petitioners is to the auction sale which has taken place. In such a situation the petitioners would have to comply with Rule 107 (13) and (14). The petitioner has not complied with either Rule 107 (13) or (14). 4. According to the petitioners, the respondents have entered into a compromise with the petitioners whereby the dues which were recovered fom the petitioners were reduced from Rs.20 lacs to Rs.16,50,000/-. Under the compromise, the petitioners were to deposit Rs.7 lacs which admittedly the petitioners have deposited. For the balance amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, the petitioners were to secure an additional loan from the respondents out of which the entire amount of Rs.9,50,000/- would have been paid to the respondents. According to the respondents, the loan has not been sought by the 3 petitioners and, therefore, it was necessary to sell the property. 5. In my opinion, once the amount has been admittedly reduced to Rs.16,50,000/-, the petitioners will have to deposit Rs.16,50,000/- and not Rs.20,00,000/-. In any event, Rs.7 lacs have already been deposited with the respondent. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount payable under Rule 107 (14) within four weeks from today. If such deposit is made within the stipulated period, the revision shall be entertained on merits. 6. The petitioners are in possession of the premises. The possession shall be retained with them till the disposal of the revision application. The petitioners will not create any third party rights in the premises. 7. In the event the petitioners deposit the amount as aforesaid, the revisional authority shall dispose of the revision application as expeditiously as possible. 8. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.