The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between proceedings for condonation of delay and the entertainment of the revision itself under section 154(2-A) of the MCS Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The three writ petitions revolve around a similar challenge and hence, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners are the borrowers, who had obtained loan from respondent No. 4 - Samta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Kopergaon on mortgaging property. Unable to repay the loan the Patsanstha preferred an application under section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (‘MCS Act’ for short) for recovery of the amount before the Assistant Registrar, Ahmednagar. Certificate came to be issued against the respective the petitioners and guarantors on distinct dates and being aggrieved by the same, the distinct revision applications came to be filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar Nashik. The orders passed on these revisions are assailed in the present writ petitions.

3. When the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar are carefully read, it conclusively record that since there was a failure on the part of revision petitioners to comply with the objections notified by the Divisional Registrar within a period stipulated, a conclusion is derived to the effect that they are not interested in prosecuting the applications and therefore, the respective applications came to be filed.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently argued that this did not result in termination of the proceedings, but the proceedings are merely filed. But when asked about what are the consequences of filing of the applications, he is unable to take his arguments further to show that on compliance being done the application can again be revived.

5. The record and proceedings would reveal that the revision applications preferred by the petitioners by invoking section 154 (2-A) of MCS Act and along with the revision applications, there are separate applications filed, seeking condonation of delay of 122 days.

On the revision applications being preferred to the Divisional Joint Registrar, the petitioners were notified about the objections and directions were issued to comply the said objections before registering the revision applications. Along with the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 the objections which were notified and brought to the notice of the petitioners are annexed at Exh. R-1. The notified objections reads as under :-

(i) No compliance of Rule 106 of MCS Act.

(ii) Synopsis not annexed.

(iii) Present application is not attested.

(iv) Proper stamp fee is not affixed to the application.

(v) For the purpose of issuing notice envelop affixed with proper postage is not supplied.

(vi) The documents which are mentioned in the application are not enlisted with their true copies.

(vii) The application for condonation of delay is not affixed with proper Court fee stamp.

(viii) There is no compliance of provision of section 154(2-A) of MCS Act which contemplate depositing 50% of recoverable dues amount.

(ix) The impugned order has not been annexed.

6. The petitioners were notified of aforesaid objections to be removed, before registration of Revisions, and on failure to do so, the applications filed shall be closed/filed. The petitioners were reminded of the objections and about its removal within the period stipulated, by two distinct letters issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 17.8.2020 and 17.11.2020. These letters are also placed on record.

The petitioners however chose to ignore and no steps were taken for removing the office objections. The nature of office objections pointed out by the Divisional Joint Registrar constrained the authority to file the proceedings by recording that the revision petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the applications and the applications tendered by them came to be filed. This is what the impugned order dated 9.2.2021 narrates.

7. The dispute between the parties is whether the refusal to entertain the revision applications is on account of non compliance of the statutory requirements under section 154 (2