Bombay High Court
Shri. Swami Samarth Medical , Through ... vs District Deputy Registrar, ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:42288
48-wp3799-2021 & connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3799 OF 2021
Sanjay Chandrakant Gaonkar ... Petitioner
V/s.
District Deputy Registrar, Coop.
Societies, Mumbai Division & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3800 OF 2021
Vilas Gaonkar ... Petitioner
V/s.
District Deputy Registrar, Coop.
Societies, Mumbai Division & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2871 OF 2018
Shri. Swami Samarth Medical,
through it's partner ... Petitioner
V/s.
District Deputy Registrar, Coop.
Societies, Mumbai Division & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Pramod G. Kathane with Mr. Anmol Ghurde for the
petitioner in each WP.
Mr. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State
in WP/3799/2021.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State in
WP/3800/2021.
Mrs. Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 &
2-State in WP/2871/2018.
Mr. Harish Pawar with Mr. Rudra Konekar and Ms.
Sonal Bhor for respondent No.4 in all WPs.
1
::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2025 01:38:05 :::
48-wp3799-2021 & connected.doc
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2025
P.C.:
1. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and
facts. Therefore, for the sake of convenience and to avoid
repetition, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in each of these petitions are borrowers of
respondent No.4-Credit Society. Respondent No.1 issued a recovery
certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960. That certificate was challenged by the
petitioners by filing writ petitions before this Court. By order dated
26 September 2016, this Court disposed of the writ petitions by
granting liberty to the petitioners to file a revision application
within three weeks, subject to their depositing a sum of Rs.10 lakh.
3. The petitioners accordingly filed revision applications before
the Divisional Joint Registrar on 17 October 2016. Later they
realised that the proper forum was not the Divisional Joint
Registrar but the District Deputy Registrar. Therefore, they
withdrew those revision applications and subsequently filed fresh
revision applications before respondent No.1 on 10 October 2017.
This resulted in a delay of more than 250 days. When the
petitioners sought condonation of that delay, the Revisional
Authority rejected the application. This rejection has led to the
filing of the present writ petitions.
4. During the pendency of these writ petitions, by ad-interim
order dated 5 March 2018, this Court directed the petitioners to
48-wp3799-2021 & connected.doc
cumulatively deposit an amount of Rs.50 lakh. It is not in dispute
before me that the petitioners have complied with this order and
deposited the said amount.
5. The main question that arises for consideration is whether
the period spent by the petitioners in prosecuting their earlier
revision before the wrong forum can be excluded under Section 14
of the Limitation Act, 1963 while considering their application for
condonation of delay. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides
that if a party has, in good faith and with due diligence, pursued a
proceeding in a court which lacks jurisdiction, then the time spent
in such proceedings is to be excluded while computing limitation.
6. On the facts of the present case, the petitioners first
approached the Revisional Authority in October 2016, but before
the wrong forum. The subsequent withdrawal of that proceeding
and filing before the correct forum, though belated, cannot be said
to be a deliberate or negligent act. The sequence of events clearly
indicates that the petitioners prosecuted the earlier proceedings in
a bona fide manner. The requirement of good faith and due
diligence under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is thus satisfied.
Therefore, the period spent before the wrong Revisional Authority
ought to have been excluded.
7. In my view, the Revisional Authority committed an error in
refusing to condone the delay. Once the protection under Section
14 is available, the delay of more than 250 days stands sufficiently
explained. Accordingly, the petitioners have made out a case for
condonation of delay in filing the revision application.
48-wp3799-2021 & connected.doc
8. Hence, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(b). The delay stands condoned, and the revision applications shall
now be entertained on merits by the competent Revisional
Authority.
9. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify one more aspect.
The question of compliance with Section 154(2A) of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, which requires deposit of
certain amounts before a revision can be entertained, shall be
decided independently by the Revisional Authority while dealing
with the matter on merits.
10. The interim order passed by this Court directing deposit of
Rs.50 lakh shall continue to operate until the Revisional Authority
takes a decision on the question of compliance with Section
154(2A). If the Revisional Authority concludes that the petitioners
have not complied with Section 154(2A), reasonable time shall be
granted to them to make the required deposit. If the petitioners fail
to comply within the time so granted, the interim protection shall
cease. If, however, the Revisional Authority finds that the
requirement of Section 154(2A) is satisfied, then the revision shall
proceed on merits in accordance with law.
11. Considering that these writ petitions have been pending
since 2018, the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the
revision applications expeditiously and, in any case, within a
period of three months from today.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
