IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the application for condonation of delay must be decided before imposing any deposit requirements under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time, in the light of the pleadings before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘DRAT’), it is obvious that the pleadings and the submissions of the parties before the learned DRAT, were in a tangent. The short issue before the learned DRAT was as to whether the order of the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘DRT’) dated 05.07.2022 in Diary No.453/2020, rejecting the interlocutory application No.424/2020 seeking condonation of delay, was legal and proper. The parties addressed the DRAT on the point of depositing 50 % amount, as a pre-condition for entertaining the Application for Condonation of Delay.

3. This Court [Coram : S.A.Bobde (as his Lordship then was), J.] held in Dilawar Hakim Shah Versus Special Recovery Officer and Others [2006(3) Mh.L.J.256] that in the matter of condonation of delay along with a statutory appeal / revision, the Revisional Authority u/s 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, has to deal with the only issue of condonation of delay. The mandate of sub-section (2A) will not apply to an application for condonation of delay.

4. It was held that the statutory scheme of Section 154 would apply after the Revisional Authority takes up the Revision for decision. The Revision can be said to have been received along with the application for condonation of delay, but is not to be entertained until the delay is condoned. The mandate of Section (2A) cannot be said to be applicable until the Application for condonation of delay is decided and the Revision is accepted. It is categorically concluded in paragraph No.5 that Section 154 does not bar the Registrar from considering the application for condonation of delay, which precedes the hearing of a Revision unless the deposit of 50% of the total recoverable amount is made. In paragraph Nos.6 and 7, it is concluded as under :-

“6. What falls for consideration in an application for condonation of delay is whether the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. The entertainment of the revision is another matter, the occasion for which arises if and after delay is condoned. There is thus a clear demarcation between the proceedings taken for establishing that there was sufficient cause for not approaching the Registrar within the prescribed period and the entertainment of the revision itself.

7. The word entertain has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in (Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range)1, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 488 in the context of an appeal wherein Their Lordships held that the word entertain means to deal with or admit to consideration and not receiving or filing of the appeal. This decision has been subsequently followed by Their Lordships in (Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1384. Undoubtedly, therefore, because the application for condonation of delay is filed along with the appeal, it cannot be said that bar of sub-section (2-A) applies even for considering the application for condonation of delay. The statutory scheme of section 154 is clear. It firstly requires a party to show sufficient cause for preferring the revision beyond the prescribed period and empowers the Registrar to entertain the revision only after sufficient cause is shown. The revision can be said to have been received along with the application for condonation of delay, but is not entertained until the delay is condoned as required by sub-section (3) itself. The bar of sub-section (2-A) applied to the entertainment of a revision unless the applicant deposits 50% of the total amount of recoverable dues. It is clear that it cannot be said that the revision is entertained unless the delay in filing it is condoned and by makin