1. Rule. Mr.Surel S. Shah, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 waives services. Mr.S.H. Kankal, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.2 and 3 waives service. Mr.V.V. Salunke, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 waives service. Both the writ petitions are heard finally by consent of parties. The facts being identical in both these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these matters are as under:

2. The respondent no.1 had obtained a loan from the respondent no.4 in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in both these writ petitions. It is the case of the petitioners in both these writ petitions that the respondent no.1 had mortgaged the property bearing R.S. No.102/1c and the building constructed thereon being Milkat 304/1 and 2. The respondent no.1 committed default in making repayment of the loan to the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 accordingly applied for issuance of the recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said MCS Act”) before the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 issued a certificate under section 101 of the said MCS Act on 30th June, 2002 holding the respondent no.1 liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,09,095/- and Rs.2,08,362/- respectively with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. on Rs.2,00,000/- from 1st April, 2003 till realization. The respondent no.1 did not challenge the said recovery certificates both dated 30th June, 2003 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. On 12th July, 2003, a demand notice was issued by the respondent no.4 upon the respondent no.1. On 20th December, 2003, the alleged mortgaged properties of the respondent no.1 were attached in view of the respondent no.1 not having paid any amount pursuant to the said two recovery certificates both dated 30th June, 2003.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 8th July, 2005, a Panchanama was drawn of the properties of the respondent no.1 and it was found that there were no movable properties of the respondent no.1 found in the house of the respondent no.1.

5. On 8th March, 2006, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur fixed the upset price of the immovable properties of the respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the said upset price was fixed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur in respect of both the properties i.e. house property as well as the land.

6. On 12th April, 2006, the proclamation of the auction was alleged to have been published on 12th May, 2006 and the auction of the immovable properties of the respondent no.1 was alleged to have been conducted. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the said auction conducted by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur and that properties of the respondent no.1 in the Writ Petition No.1965 of 2013 and of the respondent no.1 in the Writ Petition No.2126 of 2013 were sold for Rs.4,18,600/- and Rs.4,17,100/- respectively. The respondent no.1 in the Writ Petition No.2126 of 2013 is sister in law of the respondent no.1 in the Writ Petition No.1965 of 2013.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner in both the writ petitions made payment of Rs.2,73,823/- on 12th May, 2006, Rs.2,03,189/- on 16th May, 2006, Rs.3,64,211/- on 19th May, 2006 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the stamp duty on 24th May, 2006 and that the said payments were within the time contemplated under Rule 101, Sub Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short “the said MCS Rules”). On 5th May, 2008, the said sale in respect of the said immovable properties was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that since there were some typographical errors in the description of the property in the sale and