1 wp2221.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2221 OF 2011 Shri. Agrasen Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad, through its Manager, Sudhakar JIjarao Shinde, Age : 42 years, Occ:Service, R/o. Kannad, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Rajendra s/o Narayan Harde Patil, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Hiwarkheda Road, Kannad, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Kishor s/o Govind Sonar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Prop. of Deelip Auto, Bharuka Complex, Main Road, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Madanlal s/o Bansilal Agrawal, Age:50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Hiwarkheda Road, Kannad, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 4. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kannad, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 5. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS 2 wp2221.11 ... Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.H. Kawale, Advocate holding for Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Resp.No.1. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos. 4 & 5. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This petition is directed against the order of Revisional Authority in Revision No. 39/2009 dated 02-12-2010. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit-C pages 12 and 13 of the compilation of the writ petition and submitted that, the application containing detailed facts under which circumstances Advocate of the revision petitioner was not present before the Revisional Authority on the date on which the 3 wp2221.11 impugned order was came to be passed. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the observation of the Revisional Authority that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the revision is contrary to the record. In fact, time to time the petitioner did attend the dates of hearing before the Revisional Authority. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the contents of the application which was filed before the Revisional Authority. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, the observations of the Revisional Authority are in consonance with the record. The Counsel for the revision petitioner was not present on the date when the revision was filed and therefore, revision came to be dismissed. Therefore, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that, this Court may not interfere. 4 wp2221.11 5. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the contents of the application Exhibit-C, in my considered opinion, case was made out to restore the revision. In fact, the revision petitioner did not get any benefit or is not benefited by delaying the proceedings before the Revisional Authority. The observations of the Revisional Authority that, the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the revision diligently, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 6. Revision No. 39 of 2009 is restored to its original file. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Revisional Authority on 29-11-2011 at 11-30 a.m. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection, if the matter is heard by the Revisional Authority on 29-11-2011. Revisional Authority on the said date should fix the schedule of hearing and decide the revision as expeditiously as possible within three months from 5 wp2221.11 the first date of hearing. 7. It is needless to mention that, the Revisional Authority should not grant any unreasonable adjournment to both the parties unless there is any extraordinary circumstance for granting such adjournment. 8. Writ Petition is allowed to above extent and same stands disposed. Rule made absolute as indicated above. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11