Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37. This court adverted to the judgment of this court in case of Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) holding that the order confirming a sale was not an order which was capable of being challenged under section 154 of the MCS Act. This court accordingly held that the Divisional Joint Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction under section 154 of the MCS Act when none was vested in him and therefore erred in setting aside the notice of hearing dated 23rd January, 2014. This court accordingly was pleased to set aside the letter/order dated 21st December, 2013 of the District Deputy Registrar on the ground that the said District Deputy Registrar had erroneously refused permission on the ground mentioned in the said order dated 21st December, 2013 which were untenable. This court accordingly directed the Deputy Registrar to proceed on the basis of the notice hearing dated 23rd January, 2014 and to conclude the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the said judgment delivered by this court thereby setting aside the letter/order dated 21st December, 2013 has not been impugned by the respondents.

41. This Court in case of Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) has construed section 154 of the MCS Act and also Rule 107 of the MCS Rules and has held that wp6778-17 the revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act is possible either sue motu or on application in respect of only an order passed in a inquiry or proceeding by a subordinate officer of the revisional authority. It is held that since the borrower did not avail opportunity under sub rule 13 and did not avail remedy available to her under sub rule 14, the order confirming the sale was mere formality. It is held that the said order confirming the sale was thus not an order in real sense. The order is also an expression of opinion by judicial or quasi judicial authority after hearing the parties and after recording reasons for the same. This court accordingly held that the order confirming the sale could not be said to be an order contemplated under section

43. This Court in case of Ramchandra Sitaram Mulik & Ors. vs. Janata Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. and Ors., 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 245 has after adverting to the judgment of this Court in case of Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) and various other judgments has held that the revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act was not maintainable in view of the fact that the sale and confirmation certificate issued by the wp6778-17 Deputy Registrar was not an order which would entitle the borrower or the guarantor invoked under section 154 of the MCS Act. In the said judgment, this court also considered the fact that the borrower had not challenged the legality of the sale on the grounds mentioned in Rule 107(14)(i) of the MCS Rules. In my view the principles laid down by this Court in case of Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) and in case of Ramchandra Sitaram Mulik & Ors. (supra) would squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by those judgments.

58. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the observations made by this court in the order and judgment dated 18th March, 2016 about the maintainability of the said revision application filed by the respondent no.1 were prima facie wp6778-17 is concerned, a perusal of the paragraph no.9 indicates that this court had taken a view that the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar was not a "decision" or "order" so as to enable the respondent no.1 to invoke section 154 of the MCS Act and thus the Divisional Joint Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction under section 154 of the said MCS Act though the same was not vested in him and therefore he had erred in setting aside the notice of hearing dated 23rd January,2014. Be that as it may, by the said order, this court had set aside the letter/order dated 21st December, 2013 which was subject matter of the said revision application filed by the respondent no.1.