WP/9895 & 9896/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9896 OF 2010 Ashok C. Kapoor & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai ... Respondent ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9895 OF 2010 Pinky Ashok Kapoor & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. G.S. Godbole with Ms. Gargi Bhagwat i/b. Divekar & Co. for the Petitioners. Dr. Birendra Saraf a/w. Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. These Writ Petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 23rd November, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in Revision Application Nos.60 of 2010 and 61 of 2010, respectively. By these orders, the Revision Applications filed by the respondent-Bank have been allowed. The order of the Co-operative Court, Mumbai dated 8th September, 2010 passed in Miscellaneous Application Nos.5 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 has been set aside. By the order passed on 8th September, 2010, the Co-operative Court had extended the time for payment of costs to the respondent-Bank. WP/9895 & 9896/2010 2 2. It appears that initially the Co-operative Court had passed an ex-parte award in favour of the Bank. Thereafter the petitioners filed applications for setting aside that award. Since the application was filed after some delay, the petitioners had also sought a prayer for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Co- operative Court decided the issue as to whether the delay should be condoned. While condoning the delay, the Co-operative Court directed that each applicant should pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Bank within two weeks from the date of the order, which was passed on 22nd June, 2010. It appears that instead of paying Rs.12,000/- as costs to the respondent-Bank, the petitioners paid only Rs.6,000/-. 3. An application was filed on 11th August, 2010 by the respondent-Bank contending that since there was a short fall in the payment of costs and the order passed by the Co-operative Court had not been complied, the delay had not been condoned and, therefore, the Miscellaneous Application for setting aside the ex- parte Award had become infructuous. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners had, while objecting to the application, stated that it was on account of a bonafide mistake on his part that there was a short fall in the payment of costs. In these circumstances, the Co- operative Court on 8th September, 2010, extended the time for payment of costs. Accordingly, the short fall was made good by payment of Rs.6,000/- on 9th September, 2010 which, in fact, has been accepted by the respondent-Bank. WP/9895 & 9896/2010 3 However, the respondent-Bank filed Revision Application Nos.60 and 61 before the Appellate Authority contending that the Co-operative Court had become funtus officio and, therefore, could not have extended the time for depositing the costs. These Revision Applications were granted by the Revisional Court and hence the present Petitions. 5. In my opinion, the Co-operative Court had not committed any error while extending the time for depositing the costs. A bonafide mistake had been made by the Advocate by depositing costs of Rs.3,000/- in each application, rather than on behalf of each applicant. A discretionary order had been passed by the Co- operative Court extending the time, which, in my opinion, was not perverse especially since the Bank has accepted the costs after the time for payment was extended. Therefore, there was no need for the Revisional Court to interfere with the order passed by the Co-operative Court. 6. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23rd November, 2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in Revision Application Nos.60 of 2010 and 61 of 2010 are set aside. 7. Both these Writ Petitions are allowed. 8. No orders as to costs.