1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2008 Vidhushekhar Vasant Zambare. .. Appellant. vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, C.S. Pune Division, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Anurag Jain for Appellant. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP., for Respondents. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. . Heard. 2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has not been given an opportunity of hearing and the order is passed ex-parte which has caused injustice to him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant 2 that in spite of the appellant having deposited the amount in court, the set off was not given and interest is claimed on that amount by the society. 3. The learned Single Judge has gone through the record and found that the appellant is a chronic defaulter. On the earlier occasion also, recovery certificate came to be issued against him which was challenged in the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2382 of 2004 and this Court upheld the recovery certificate and this is the second time the petitioner has committed default. It appears that the petitioner is in the habit of not paying the dues of the society and agitating the issue merely on the ground that the society is always claiming additional charges towards outgoings which they are not entitled. 4. We do not think that this is a fit case which calls for interference in our jurisdiction under Letters Patent. We do not find any error or illegality on the part of the learned Single Judge. In view of this, the appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application does not survive. The same is dismissed as infructuous. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 3 (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)