The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to condone the delay in filing legal remedies must be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the principles of condonation of delay as established in relevant case law must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad in Miscellaneous Application No.7/2020. By the impugned order, delay of 11 years in filing the Revision Petition has been condoned by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

3. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the recovery certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar on 31.12.2009 and the same was served upon respondent no.3 on 12.01.2010. He submits that, the approval for offset price for sale of the property was issued on 28.12.2013 and auction notice was published on 25.07.2013. He further submits that sale of the property was effected by way of sale certificate dated 27.05.2014. It is further submitted that on account of pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.144/2014 filed by respondent no.3 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad for restraining the petitioner Bank from selling the suit property, the sale transaction could not be registered. Subsequently, the Suit was dismissed and the sale deed was registered on 20.02.2019.

4. Mr. Suryawanshi, invites my attention to paragraph no.3 of the Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent no.3 seeking condonation of delay, in which respondent no.3 has admitted that she had obtained copy of the recovery certificate from the Bank in the month of February, 2009. He submits that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 11 long years in filing Revision before the Joint Registrar, that too after the entire sale process is completed. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2020.

5. Per contra, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 supports the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner is a lady who was continuously undergoing cardiac issues since the year 2008 onwards and was accordingly prevented from challenging the recovery certificate within the prescribed time limit. He further submits that the sale deed in respect of the property was registered on 20.02.2019 and that therefore respondent no.3 was justified in filing the Revision Petition in the year 2020. He further submits that, respondent no.3 had also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7295/2019 in which liberty was granted to respondent no.3 by order dated 18.06.2019 to take steps as permissible under law. Mr. Kulkarni, submits that after passing of the said order on 18.06.2019, respondent no.3 took necessary steps by filing the Revision Petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He submits that considering the circumstances of the case, the Divisional Joint Registrar is justified in condoning the delay. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Mr. Shinde, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State Government supports the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

7. Rival contentions of the parties fall for my consideration.

8. The recovery certificate was issued against respondent no.3 on 31.12.2009. The same was served upon her on 12.01.2010. It is not the case of respondent no.3 that she was unaware of issuance of the recovery certificate. In fact, she admits the knowledge of issuance of recovery certificate. In paragraph no.3 of her application, she has pleaded as under:

“3. The petitioner states that, the bank has filed proceeding u/s 101 of MCS Act before the Taluka Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society Aurangabad, the respondent no.1 has passed final order on 31.12.2009 but however they have not received the certified copy of the impugned order and therefore the petitioner does not the date of judgment. However the petitioner has obtained the copy of from the bank in the month of February, 2009 and thereafter she has tried to conta