-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1) Writ Petition No.9634 of 2007 1. Raheja Constructions and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd. and others ..Respondents (2) Writ Petition No. 9635 of 2007 1. M/s Mehta Raheja Constructions Pvt.Ltd.& Ors. ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd. and others ..Respondents (3) W.P. No. 9636 of 2007 1. M/s M.R.Constructions & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd. and Ors. ..Respondents (4) Writ Petition No. 9638 of 2007 1. M/s Raheja Enterprises ..Petitioner vs. 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents (5) Writ Petition No.9639 of 2007 1. M/s M.R.Constructions & ors. ..Petitioners vs. 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents (6) Writ Petition No.,9640 of 2007 M/s M.R.Constructions & Ors. ..Petitioners vs. -2- 1. Rupee Coop.Bank Ltd.& ors. ..Respondents Shri Pankaj J.Das for petitioners in all petitions. Shri Kishor V.Tembe for respondent no.1 in all petitions. Shri R.M.Patne, A.G.P.for respondent State in all petitions. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 15th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. These are matters where under challenge is the order of the Revisional Authority condoning the delay in filing the revision application. 2. The Revision Application Nos. 287 to 298 were filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. which is the first respondent before me challenging the orders dated 3rd March, 2007 and 12th March, 2007 of the Asstt.Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune. The Asstt. Registrar refused to issue a certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in favour of the said Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. The matter was taken upto the Divisional Joint Registrar but it was pointed out to the said Registrar by the petitioners who are original opponents that the revision application is barred by limitation. It should, therefore, be -3- dismissed. A preliminary issue was raised by them to the maintainability of the same. 3. The Bank pointed out to the Revisional Authority that although the orders are shown to have been passed on 3rd and 12th March, 2007, the same were never communicated to Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. In May, 2007, a copy was supplied to them on 20th May, 2007. The certified true copy was produced for perusal of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The certified true copy of the outward register maintained by the Asstt.Registrar was also produced. In such circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar took a note of the endorsement on the Revision application, by his office, that the revision application is not barred by limitation. 4. Despite this material being produced, he heard the parties on the preliminary objection and ultimately held that if there is any delay considering the cause shown the same deserves to be condoned. 5. Such order of the Divisional Joint Registrar based upon the material produced before him is not liable to be interfered with as the -4- discretion exercised is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The same is exercised in judicious manner and in the light of the settled principles. There is no merit in each of these writ petitions. The same are dismissed. Reliance placed by Shri Das on the judgment of the learned single Judge is misplaced because therein on facts this Court found that the appeal of the landlord was entertained after 10 years. There was no application for condonation of delay nor was there any prayer in the appeal memo in that behalf. In such fact situation this Court made the observations relied upon. The said decision is clearly distinguishable. The petitions are dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)