1 73 wp.8858.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8858 OF 2010 Matrubhumi Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Ramanna D. Seneva Panchamurth Bldg and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. R.G.Panchal for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Prabhavalkar for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24 th August, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as well as the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Respondent No.1 has been served with the notice. 2 The Petitioner is a credit society. By the impugned order, application for condonation of delay of more than two years in filing revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- 2 73 wp.8858.10 operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The challenge in the revision application was to the order dated 27 th June, 2007 granting recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited attention of the Court to the averments made in the petition and in particular, paragraph No.5 thereof. He submitted that detailed reasons have been assigned in the said paragraph for the delay caused in filing the revision application. He submitted that if the said reasons set out in this petition are considered, a clear case of existence of sufficient cause is made out. 4 The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the application for condonation of delay filed in the revision application was cryptic and there is no explanation for a long delay of more than two years. He submitted that in any event, the order impugned which was sought to be challenged by way of revision 3 73 wp.8858.10 does not cause any prejudice to the Applicant. 5 I have considered the submission. The application for condonation of delay is very cryptic. It runs only into three paragraphs. The only material paragraph is paragraph No.3, which reads thus: “3. Applicant, further states that the Application for certified copy was made on due date. However, copy was made available on 13/07/07. Thereafter, the same was placed before the Office Bearers and Committee Members of the Society do decide further line of action in the matter and upon detailed discussion in this regard, it was decided unanimously to challenge the verdict before the higher authority i.e. this honorable authority and in this process the delay has been caused on above said cause and reason and the delay needs to be condoned on the ground of natural justice. Further, our Panel Advocate Mr. S.N.Gadgil has ceased as a practicing Advocate and joined the service hence, delay has been caused to appoint new Advocate on our panel and delay needs tobe condoned.” 6 The Divisional Joint Registrar held that there was no sufficient explanation for delay of 24 months. In paragraph No.5 of this petition, it is stated thus: 4 73 wp.8858.10 “5. That, the Petitioner states that the Petitioner received the copy of the said order on 13.7.2007 and thereafter sought legal opinion on 30.7.2007 from its Pavel Advocate Mr. Sunil Gadgil regarding next course of action on the said order. Having decided to assail the said order dated 27.6.2007 by a Revision Application, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 7.8.2007 to said Advocate to file a Revision Application. The Petitioner afterwards kept reminding the said Advocate regarding revision application proposed to be filed. However, the said Advocate, having left the Petitioner society, joined the services of another Bank around in December 2008 and therefore, a resolution dated 21.7.2009 was passed by petitioner society authorizing another advocate Mr. A.V. Khot to file the said Revision Application along with application for condonation of delay. The Advocate Mr. A.V. Khot filed the Revision Application along with application for condonation of delay on 18.11.2009 which letter on came to be handed over to a law firm namely M/s. Max Juris for further prosecution of Revision Application as Mr. A.V. Khot did not show his willingness to continue. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'B' Colly are the copies of the said Revision Application and application for condonation of delay.” 7 The aforesaid reasons for delay have been set out by the Petitioner for the first time in this petition. Considering the reasons set out, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit in support to the delay condonation application incorporating the aforesaid facts so that the Respondents can deal the 5 73 wp.8858.10 same. The prejudice which may be caused to the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 can be compensated by ordering payment of costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 5 th May, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the application for condonation of delay being Application No.1 of 2009 is restored to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar ; ii. It will be open for the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay within a period of eight weeks form today. After giving an opportunity to the Respondents to file reply to the said affidavit and after considering the said additional affidavit, the application for condonation of delay shall be decided afresh ; iii. The Petitioner shall pay total amount of costs 6 73 wp.8858.10 quantified at Rs.10,000/- to Respondent Nos.2 to 4 within a period of six weeks from today. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent ; and iv. The petition is allowed on above terms. [ A.S.OKA, J ]