Bombay High Court

ARUN JANGILAL LUTHRA AND ANRversusDISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND ORS

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court allowed condonation of delay, set aside the Deputy Registrar's order, and directed the revision to be decided on its merits, with costs of Rs. 50,000 payable by the petitioners.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the District Deputy Registrar's order rejecting their application for condonation of delay in filing a revision against a recovery certificate dated 18 June 2021. They had first approached the High Court via a writ petition, then filed a revision before the Hon'ble Minister, which was dismissed, and only after a further 1 year and 8 months filed the correct revision before the Deputy Registrar. The Court found that the petitioners were misadvised, had not abandoned their claim, and were entitled to an opportunity to prosecute the revision on its merits. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay, set aside the Registrar's order, and directed the revision to be decided on its merits. The petitioners were ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 costs to the respondent society, which could be withdrawn from the amount deposited in Court.

Issues considered

Whether the 1 year 8 months delay in filing the revision before the District Deputy Registrar can be condoned.
Whether the petitioners abandoned their claim after the Minister's dismissal of the earlier revision.
Whether the order of the District Deputy Registrar rejecting the condonation application should be set aside.
Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioners.

Subjects

condonation of delay
revision
recovery certificate
co-operative societies
writ petition
costs
alternate remedy

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                             55-WP-9191-2026


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 9191 OF 2026

Arun Jangilal Luthra and Anr.                       ...Petitioners

                     V/s.

District Deputy Registrar and Ors.                  ...Respondents
                               ________________
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia, through V.C, i/b RES Juris, for Petitioner.
Mr. Aman Saraf with Ms. Ritika Dave i/b Samarth Associates, for
Respondent No. 2.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Navin J. Luthra, for Petitioner No. 2-Present Personally in Court.
                               ________________

                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                          DATED: 17 AUGUST 2026


P.C.:


1)          By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged order dated 13
March 2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies (4), Mumbai, dismissing the application for condonation of
delay in filing the revision against recovery certificate dated 18 June
2021.


2)          I have heard Mr. Kanojia, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners and Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 2-Society

                                   Page No.1 of 4
                                  17 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                               55-WP-9191-2026


3)          It appears that the Society filed recovery application for arrears
during 1996 to 2019. The Deputy Registrar passed order on 18 June 2021
issuing the recovery certificate. Instead of challenging the recovery
certificate before the District Deputy Registrar, the Petitioners directly
filed Writ Petition No. 2993 of 2021 before this Court. The Petition was
disposed of on 18 October 2022, observing availability of alternate
remedy. Instead of filing revision before the District Deputy Registrar,
the Petitioners filed Revision before the Hon’ble Minister, on 28
November 2022. The Revision preferred the Hon’ble Minister was
dismissed on 15 March 2024, observing that the appropriate forum would
be the District Deputy Registrar. After rejection of the revision by the
Hon’ble Minister on 15 March 2024, the Petitioners maintained silence
for about 1 year and 8 months. In fact, a statement is made in paragraph
3-E of the Petition that the Petitioners had lost hope after dismissal of
revision by the Hon’ble Minister. It is only after expiry of period 1 year
and 8 months that the Petitioners filed Revision before the District
Deputy Registrar. Considering this position, the District Deputy Registrar
has rejected application for condonation of delay by order dated 13
March 2026.


4)          It cannot be said that the Petitioners had slept over the order
dated 18 June 2021 passed by the Recovery Officer. They have been given
wrong advice in relation to adoption of remedies. Firstly, they where
advised to file direct Writ Petition before this Court and time between 2
September 2021 to 18 October 2022 was spent in prosecuting Writ
Petition No. 2993 of 2021. After the Petition was disposed of, observing
availability of alternate remedy, the Petitioner again received wrong

                                     Page No.2 of 4
                                    17 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                              55-WP-9191-2026


advice and they filed Revision before the Hon’ble Minister, which
remained pending from 28 November 2022 to 15 March 2024. True it is
that Petitioners have not properly explained the delay from 15 March
2024 to 17 November 2025, when the Revision was ultimately lodged
before the correct Authority, namely, the District Deputy Registrar. For
failure to properly explain delay for about 1 year and 8 months,
Petitioner are required to be saddled with costs.


5)          I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Saraf that the
Petitioners had abandoned their claim after the order passed by the
Hon’ble Minister on 15 March 2024. Merely stating that the Petitioner
had lost hope after dismissal of revision by the Minister does not mean
that the Petitioners had given up or abandoned their challenge.


6)          It is also seen that the Petitioners have apparently received a
statement of accounts from the Deputy Registrar in March 2025 and they
want to demonstrate an error in the same. In my view therefore, an
opportunity needs to be granted to the Petitioners to prosecute the
revision on merits. By order dated 21 July 2026 this Court had directed
Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards possible costs
that may be imposed in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioners have
deposited the said amount in this Court.


7)          In my view therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed by
condoning the delay, subject to imposition of costs.


8)          Petition accordingly succeeds. The order dated 13 March 2026
passed by the District Deputy Registrar is set aside. The Miscellaneous

                                    Page No.3 of 4
                                   17 August 2026
Vaishnavi                                                 55-WP-9191-2026


Application for condonation of delay is allowed. The District Deputy
Registrar shall proceed to decide the Revision Application on its own
merits, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court
in the order.


9)          Petitioners shall pay Respondent no. 2-Society costs of Rs.
50,000/-. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2-Society shall be entitled to
withdraw the amount deposited in this Court, alongwith accrued
interest.


10)         With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed of, with costs as indicated above.


11)         The Revision shall be decided as expeditiously as possible. The
Parties shall appear before the District Deputy Registrar on 27 August
2026 alongwith a copy of this order downloaded from website of this
Court and shall obtain further orders for fixation of date(s) of hearing in
the remanded Revision.




                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                    Page No.4 of 4
                                   17 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…