The sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is the primary criterion, and the court's function is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and advance substantial justice.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard finally at admission stage by consent of the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By way of this present Writ Petition, the petitioner/auction purchaser is challenging the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by respondent No.3 in Misc. Application No.43 of 2014 filed by respondent No.7 herein, thereby condoning the delay of 376 days caused in filing the revision petition.

3. Respondent No.7 is the owner of the property in dispute. Respondent No.7 had mortgaged the disputed property for availing the loan on 28.08.1997 with respondent No.6 / Devgiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited (herein after referred to as 'Bank'). It appears that respondent No.7 had availed the loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) and mortgaged the disputed property with the bank by executing all the necessary legal documents. Respondent No.7 has thereafter committed default in the repayment and despite the final notice served on him, failed to repay the borrowed amount, respondent No.6-bank has obtained the recovery certificate as provided under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, the valuation of the property was carried out by the Government Valuer and on 20.12.2013 the public auction notice was issued in the daily newspaper 'Sakal'. The auction was scheduled and held on 20.01.2014 and the present petitioner had submitted the highest bid. At that time, no one has raised the objection and as such auction sale has become final. The said auction was confirmed by passing resolution in the meeting of the Directors of the respondent-bank on 05.03.2014. Thereafter, sale deed was executed in the name of the petitioner in the office of the Sub Registrar, Aurangabad on 20.03.2014. The respondent-bank has given letter to the Tahsildar on 19.04.2014 for recording the name of the petitioner in respect of the suit property in the revenue records. Thus, the name of the petitioner stands mutated in 7/12 extract of the suit land. Respondent No.7 has thereafter approached respondent No.3 by filing the revision under Section 154 of the Act along with the separate application seeking condonation of delay. The said application is registered as Misc. Application No.43 of 2014 and by impugned order dated 29.05.2015 respondent No.3 has allowed the said application. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.7 has failed to show the sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay caused in filing the revision. The learned counsel submits that even respondent No.3 in the impugned order has also accepted that the respondent-bank has published the public auction notice of the suit property in a daily newspaper 'Sakal', which is widely circulated in the region. Even respondent No.3 has also observed that the notice dated 08.07.2014 issued to respondent No.7 in the said proceedings returned unserved and therefore the paper publication was made about public auction in the daily newspaper 'Sakal'. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has observed that the matter needs to be decided on merits and in view of the same, the delay required to be condoned. The learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 has not observed that respondent No. 7 has shown the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. On the other hand, respondent No.3 has made the observations in the impugned order, which indicates that respondent No.7 has failed to show the sufficient reasons for condonation of said inordinate delay.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his submissions placed his reliance in a case Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 81.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that the properties put to the auction by the Recovery Officer of the Bank are admittedly the agricultural lands with dwelling house