Bombay High Court
Acrynova Industries Private Limited vs The Learned Divisional Joint Registrar ... on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-OS:2588
kishor 1/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.21448 OF 2023
Acrynova Industries Private Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The learned Divisional Joint Registrar
Co-operative Societies & Ors. ...Respondents
....
Mr. Simil Purohit, a/w. Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman & Mr. Mayank Bagla i/b.
Mr. Jayesh Mestry, for Petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-State.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, a/w. Ms. Vaibhavi Parchake, for Respondent No.3.
Ms. Dhruti M. Kapadia, a/w. Ms. Karishma Kacchila i/b. Mr. Monish
Bhatia, for Respondent No.4.
....
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 14 FEBRUARY 2024.
P.C. :
The present petition arises out of proceedings filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar by Respondent No.3 under provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act, 1960) challenging Order dated 03 June 2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::
kishor 2/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the exercise of jurisdiction by the Divisional Joint Registrar in entertaining the Revision Petition filed by Respondent No.3. It is case of the Petitioner that the sale of the flat in favour of Petitioner has attained finality on account of various Orders passed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Petitioner therefore apprehends that Respondent No.3 is deliberately engaging the Petitioner in litigation with a view to delay the transfer of Share Certificate and membership of the society by filing baseless proceedings. The prayers made in the present petition read thus :
a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for calling the papers and proceedings of Revision Application No. 671 of 2022, Stay Application and Intervention Applications filed therein and quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 15 th May 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in so far as it extends the status quo Order as the same is illegal, untenable and bad in law;
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for calling the papers and proceedings of Revision Application No. 671 of 2022, Stay Application and Intervention Applications filed therein and quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 12th June 2023 to the extent it allows the impleadment of the Respondent No. 4 in the Revision Application as the same is illegal, untenable, bad in law and without considering the facts and documents on record;
c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for calling the papers and proceedings of Revision Application No. 671 of 2022, Stay Application and Intervention Applications filed therein and quash and set aside the Impugned Roznama dated 3rd July 2033 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in so far as extend the status quo Order as the same is illegal, untenable and bad in law;
"C1. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for calling the papers ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 3/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx and proceedings of Revision Application No. 671 of 2022 and Revision Application No. 302 of 2022 and declare the same as untenable, illegal, bad in law and quash the same, C2. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1, its officers, agents, representatives and/or any other person/s to stay the proceedings in Revision Application No. 302 of 2022 and Revision Application No. 671 of 2022 pending before the Respondent No. 1;
C3. Ad-interim/interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clause C2."
d) For Costs;
e) Any other reliefs that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice may be granted.
3. The issue in the petition relates to the sale of flat in favour of Petitioners pursuant to the auction conducted in pursuance of the Orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. To get some idea about the exact chronology of events that have transpired in the present case, it would be apposite to reproduce the factual position narrated by this Court while deciding First Appeal No.531 of 2022 by Order dated 13 June 2022. This Court has observed in paragraph Nos.2 to 15 and 38 of the Order as under:
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case it would be relevant to narrate in brief the chequered history of the case. The Appellant, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintifi had availed credit facilities from the Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank"). It was alleged that the outstanding dues were approximately to the tune of Rs.277,00,00,000/-. The Bank filed original application No.303 of 2002 before the DRT Mumbai for recovery of the said dues from the Plaintiff and others. The original application was allowed on 24/07/2006. Pursuant thereto recovery certificate was issued whereby the borrower and guarantors were directed to repay the outstanding dues. The order dated 24/7 / 2006 was challenged before DRAT and several other measures taken by the Bank were challenged under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::
kishor 4/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
3. Pending the aforesaid proceedings by deed of assignment dated 30/9 / 2013 the Bank assigned the debts concerning the present dispute and underlying securities in favour of M / s Phoenix ARC Pvt.
Ltd. Pursuant to the assignment, the Plaintiff and other concerned parties and M / s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. arrived at a settlement and executed consent terms dated 1/10 / 2013 The Plaintiff, who was a party/signatory to the said consent terms undertook to repay to M / s Phoenix ARC a sum of Rs.27,31,04,000/- on or before 30/9 / 2014 The Plaintiff also agreed to handover possession of the secured asset being Flat No. 37 on the 18 ^ (th) floor of the building known as "Usha Kiran", along with Garage No. 17 and open parking space, hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Premises" to M / s Phoenix ARC and also gave an undertaking not to obstruct execution in case of the recovery certificate in case of default of consent terms.
4. The Plaintiff not only failed to repay the amount and handover possession of the secured asset but in clear breach of the consent terms, made every possible attempt to obstruct execution of recovery certificate by filing several proceedings before the authorities under the SARFAESI Act as well as before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. The Plaintiffs filed writ petition 1766 of 2017 and 1767 of 2017 challenging the order dated 15/6 / 2017 and possession notice dated 21/06/2017 passed/issued by the DRT for handing over possession of the suit premises. These petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05/07/2017 with cost On 6/7 / 2017 the Plaintiff sought extension of time to vacate the premises on medical grounds of her husband. Minutes of the order between the parties came to be recorded and by order dated 06/07/2017 this Court granted 8 weeks time to the plaintiff to vacate the premises. Instead of vacating the premises, the Plaintiff filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed.
6. The Plaintiff once again filed a notice of motion before the Division Bench of this Court and sought modification of orders dated 5/7 / 2017 and 6/7 / 2017 The said notice of motion was rejected, which order came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30/08/2017 dismissed the SLP and granted time to the Plaintiff to vacate the premises by 31/10/2017 subject to the usual undertaking before the ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 5/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx Hon'bel Supreme Court within 7 days from 30/08/2017. Accordingly, possession of the suit premises was handed over to the DRT Receiver on 31/10/2017. The flat was thereafter put to sale by auction after following due process. Since no bids were received auction could not be held in respect of the suit premises.
7. The Plaintiff thereafter filed two separate Applications being Exhibit Nos.618 and 631 before the Recovery Officer DRT-I Mumbai seeking discharge of liability alleging that the liability was only to the extent of Rs. 5 Crores with interest. These applications were rejected by DRT with costs. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.9785 of 2021 which came to be withdrawn in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the DRT.
8. The Plaintiff thereafter filed appeal before the DRT, in which prayer for waiver was rejected. Since the Plaintiff was unable to comply with mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 30 A of the SARFAESI Act, the appeal came to be dismissed. The challenge to the said order was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.8946 of 2021, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16/07/2021.
9. In the meantime, sale program in respect of the suit premises was fixed. The Plaintiff and her son deposited an amount of Rs. 1.25 Crores before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai towards 25% of the alleged outstanding liability and sought stay of sale scheduled on 27.12.2021 by taking shelter of order dated 02/12/2021 of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 24293 of 2021. In the said writ petition the Division Bench of this Court while considering the issue of vacancy of seats in DRAT had noted that 5 Debt Recovery Tribunals of the Country were non functional and in order to secure the interest of the litigants had stayed orders under challenge from the time the borrower makes a pre-deposit of at east 25% of the debt as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the DRT, whichever is less. It appears that the Recovery officer, DRT-1, Mumbai stayed the process of sale scheduled on 27.12.2021 in view of deposit of Rs.1.5 crores by the Plaintiff.
10. The order of Recovery Officer, was challenged by M / s Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. by filing a Writ Petition (L) No. 46 of 2022 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 6/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx before the Division Bench of this Court. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed and the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai and the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Recovery officer were set aside and the stay on conducting of public auction was vacated. The challenge to the said Judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos. 2594-2595 of 2022.
11. The Sale Notice was issued on 24.02.2022. The Respondent No. 4 - Acrynova Pvt. Ltd. submitted its bid on 28.03.2022. E- auction for sale of the suit premises was scheduled on 31.03.2022. The Plaintiff filed the suit on 30/3 / 2022 against Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3') for :-
(i) declaration that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled to participate in the auction proceedings conducted by DRT in respect of the suit premises.
(ii) to restrain Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from participating in the auction proceedings.
(iii) To restrain Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from executing any documents from transfer of the suit premises in favour of their nominee or acquire any interest or right in the suit premises.
12. The Trial Court did not grant any ad-interim relief in favour of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiff filed an appeal from order (lodging) No.8104 of 2022 before this Court. The said appeal was heard and this Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court. E-auction was conducted on in respect of the suit premises on 31/3 / 2022 and Respondent No.4-M/s. Acrynova Industries was declared as a highest bidder. The plaint thereafter came to be amended and M/s. Acrynova Industries came to be impleaded as Defendant No.4. By way of amendment, without seeking any substantive relief against Defendant No.4 and/or challenging the auction, a prayer for temporary injunction came to be incorporated seeking to restrain Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 from making further payment towards auction sale of suit premises and to restrain them from executing or registering any deed or documents pertaining to the auction sale of the suit premises.
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::kishor 7/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
13. The Defendants filed a notice of motion under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint in view of specific bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The Plaintiff contested the said motion alleging that the secured creditor M/s. Pheonix ARC is not a party to the suit and that the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the auction sale has not been challenged in the suit. It is alleged that the relief is sought against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were not the parties before the DRT. Defendant No.2, who is the Secretary of Defendant No.3-Society has misused his position and in collusion and connivance with the secured creditor and other Defendants played fraud upon the Plaintiff and sought to deprive her of her property rights. It is stated that DRT or any other authority under the SARFAESI Act has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such dispute. Hence, the bar under Section 34 is not applicable.
14. Learned Judge allowed the Notice of Motion and rejected the plaint inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff had approached the DRT as well as the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies raising objection to the auction proceeding as well as subsequent transfer of the suit premises in favour of Defendant No.4, the successful bidder. The learned Judge held that the Plaintiff is only trying to nullify the effect and operation of the auction proceedings conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Judge therefore held that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is applicable and consequently civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
15. Learned Judge has further observed that the Plaintiff has raised objections over the society's role in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Court. The learned Judge has also held that the grievance of the Plaintiff is well covered under the definition of 'dispute' in Section 91(1) of the Societies Act, 1960. Learned Judge held that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1) in view of bar Section 163 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
38. Under the circumstances and in view of discussion supra, I do not find any merit in the appeal and hence the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/-. The civil application (s) stand (s) disposed of in view of dismissal of the appeal.
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::kishor 8/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
4. First Appeal No.531 of 2022 was filed challenging Order passed by the City Civil Court rejecting Plaint of Respondent No. 3 under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Suit in which Plaint was rejected was filed by Respondent No. 3 to prevent Petitioner from purchasing the flat in auction. This Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by Respondent No. 3 by imposing costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Respondent No. 3. The Order passed by this Court on 13 June 2022 has attained finality on account of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (C) No.11030 of 2022 by the Apex Court by Order dated 22 June 2022. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 18 of its Order are as under :
15. Apart from making a bald statement of collusion between Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and the secured creditor, i.e., M/s. Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd. there is nothing substantial as to how and as to what precise fraud has been committed. The only case of the Petitioner for creating a case of fraud is that the Petitioner's name was not registered as a member of the society and the reason for not registering the name of the Petitioner as a member of the society was that the society, i.e., Defendant No.3 was in collusion with the secured creditor as well as with the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The fact of the matter is that even if the name of the Petitioner would have been registered as a member of the society, it would have hardly given any benefit to the Petitioner in the present case. Being registered as a member of the society would have only meant that the petitioner is a member of the society. It would not create ownership rights on a property. Moreover, and most importantly, not only is this just a bald allegation but the necessary party against whom fraud was alleged i.e., M/s. Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd. was never made a party in the suit proceedings before the Civil Court.
16. At this stage, it was placed on record that the suit premises have been sold in favour of Defendant No.4 i.e., Acrynova Industries Pvt.
Ltd. The challenge to the auction and sale, which was made at the hands of none other than the present petitioner before the Bombay ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 9/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx High Court and as well as this Court has been dismissed and that as far as the sale auction in favour of the Defendant No.4 is concerned, that has attained a finality. Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 25.05.2022 of the Trial Court, reads as under:
"4. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the suit premises is sold to defendant no.4 in auction proceeding conducted on 31/03/2022. Now the plaintiff is seeking declaration that defendants no.1 and 2 are not entitled to participate in the auction proceeding and to restrain them from participating in the auction proceeding. Similarly, he has prayed to restrain defendants no.1, 2 and 4 or their representatives from making further payments towards auction sale of the suit premises. In short, the plaintiff is trying to nullify the effect and operation of the auction proceedings regarding the suit premises conducted in the proceeding before DRT through the medium of order of this Court. If prayers of the plaintiff are considered, it would result into wiping out all legal exercise made by DRT to recover the loan amount from the defaulter and the guarantors. In order to prevent such counter productive things in the form of indulgence in the functioning of DRT and in order to achieve the object of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act), Section 34 has been incorporated in the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, civil courts are barred from entertaining the proceeding in respect of any matter which is DRT or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. It is specifically provided in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act that no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the SARFAESI Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993."
17. The observations of the Bombay High Court on this aspect are as under:
"33. It is true that the Plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the auction proceedings or the orders passed by the authorities under the SARFAESI Act. The Plaintiff has also not sought ght any substantive relief against Defendant No.4, who is the highest bidder. However, a plain reading of the averments ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 10/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx and the prayers in the plaint would indicate that the Plaintiff, under the guise of raising a membership dispute with the Defendant No.3 Society, has in fact once again attempted to stall the auction proceedings conducted by the Recovery Officer under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Though the Plaintiff has alleged fraud, the pleadings in this regard are vague, ambiguous and do not meet the requirement of Order VI Rule 4 of CPC and/or do not satisfy the test of fraud. The allegations of fraud and collusion is nothing but clever and ingenious drafting to get over the bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and to prevent the auction and the auction having been concluded, to prevent the Defendant No.4- auction purchaser from taking possession of the suit premises. The learned Judge was therefore perfectly justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC."
18. We are totally in agreement with the above observations of the two courts and the order passed by the trial court allowing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC the Bombay High Court dated 13.06.2022 and upholding that order and dismissing the appeal of the present Petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay High Court was absolutely justified in imposing the cost of Rs. 5 lakh, on the Petitioner. It is not only the proceedings before the Civil Court initiated by the Petitioner in the year 2022 which was on abuse of the law, but the entire conduct of the petitioner is a clear reflection of the fact that the petitioner has been doing so repeatedly, after being a signatory to the settlement as back as 01.10.2013.
5. Thus, Apex Court has clearly held that the auction sale in favour of Petitioner has attained finality.
6. It appears that Respondent No.3 had also filed Writ Petition No.6252 of 2022 challenging validity of certificate of sale. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No.6252 of 2022 by Order dated 25 May 2022. That Order has also attained finality on account of withdrawal of Special Leave Petition (C) No.18753 of 2022 by Respondent No.3 before ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 11/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx Apex Court on 17 June 2022. The only liberty sought before the Apex Court was for approaching appropriate authority so far as the household items are concerned. Therefore, challenge to the Sale Certificate raised in Writ Petition No.6252 of 2022 has also been repelled and the Order of this Court has attained finality on account of withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.
7. Despite passing of various Orders passed by this Court and by the Apex Court, it appears that Respondent No.3 was parallelly prosecuting remedies before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies with a view to stall transfer of membership in respect of the flats in favour of Petitioner. It appears that Deputy Registrar had passed Order dated 13 October 2021 directing conduct of enquiry with regard to membership in respect of the flat in question. The said directions dated 13 October 2021 were subsequently recalled by the Deputy Registrar by passing order dated 03 June 2022 after realizing that the issue of title in respect of flat was already subject matter of challenge before various Courts including this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court. This is how the directions for conduct of enquiry came to be withdrawn by the Dy. Registrar vide Order dated 03 June 2022.
8. Aggrieved by the Order dated 03 June 2022 passed by the Dy. Registrar, Respondent No.3 has filed Revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154 of the MCS Act, 1960 seeking following prayers :
(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 3 June 2022 passed by the Respondent No.1;
(b) to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from transferring the said share certificate No. 41 in respect of 10 shares of Rs. 100 each having distinctive No. 401 to 410 (both inclusive) the said Flat No. 37, New ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 ::: kishor 12/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx Usha Kiran Co-op. Hsg., Soc. Ltd., Carmichael Road, M.L.Dahanukar Marg, Mumbai - 400 026 to any individual/ third party/ banks/ financial institutions.
(c) that pending the submission of the report by the Gamdevi Police Station in the enquiry and investigation process and further orders of the Hon'ble High Court, this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to stay the application and implementation of the impugned order dated 3 June 202- by the Respondent No. 2 society;
(d) that pending the submission of the report by the Gamdevi Police Station in the enquiry and investigation process and further orders of the Hon'ble High Court, this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to restrain the New UshaKiran Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., from transferring the said share certificate No. 41 in respect of 10 shares of Rs. 100 each having distinctive No. 401 to 410 (both inclusive) and the said Flat No. 37, New UshaKiran Co-op. Hsg., Soc. Ltd., Carmichael Road, M.L. Dahanukar Marg, Mumbai 400 026, to any individual/third party/banks/financial institutions.
(e) any other orders as deem fit and proper;
(f) for costs;
9. It appears that another Revision has been filed by Respondent No.3 before the Divisional Joint Registrar seeking following prayers :
(a) That the roznama dated 15 November 2022 passed by Respondent No. I be set aside and or stayed.
(b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this application and Appeal, ad-interim and interim stay be granted on roznama dated 15 November 2022 as no further action in furtherance of Roznama dated 15 November 2022 be passed by Respondent No. 1 required for any compliance;
(c) Interim and ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a) and (b) be granted in the interest of justice;
(d) Any other order and further relief as this Hon'ble Competent Authority deems fit and proper may be passed;::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::
kishor 13/13 904 WP (L) 21448 of 2023 (O).docx
(e) Cost of this application be provided for;
10. It appears that in the Revisions so filed by Respondent No.3, son of Respondent No.3 i.e. Respondent No. 4 has been permitted to intervene apparently on the ground his complaint with regard to illegal removal of movables in the flat. Petitioners are aggrieved by the Order of impleadment of Respondent No.4 in the Revisions. In my view, the Divisional Joint Registrar would obviously not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of legality or otherwise of removal of movables or articles in the flat.
11. Dr. Warunjikar would submit that the Divisional Joint Registrar has heard the parties in both the Revision Petitions and has closed the proceedings for passing of Orders. In my view, therefore the Divisional Joint Registrar can be permitted to pronounce the Orders in those proceedings.
Obviously while passing the Order, Divisional Joint Registrar would be mindful of various orders that have passed by this Court and the Apex Court, particularly with regard to findings that Auction Sale and Sale Certificate have attained finality.
12. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by permitting the Divisional Joint Registrar to pronounce orders in both the Revisions as expeditiously as possible preferably before 29 February 2024. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall first pronounce the Order on main Revisions and shall not await decision of any other application(s) filed by any party seeking any other reliefs.
Digitally signedSANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
KISHOR by KISHOR
VISHNU
VISHNU KAMBLE
Date:
KAMBLE 2024.02.16
17:49:00 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 01:21:42 :::