WRIT PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2018

5th July 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Shri M. V. Amale
Respondent Counsel: Shri V. A. Thakre Shri U. J. Deshpande
Act Name: Maharashtra Money Lenders Act, 2014

Section :
Section 18(4) Maharashtra Money Lenders Act, 2014

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co­operative Societies, Amravati exercising powers under provisions of Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money Lenders Act, 2014. By the impugned order the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner has not been condoned.

3. The respondent no.4 had made a complaint as regards illegal money lending at the instance of the petitioner. The said complaint was made on 04.11.2015. After following due procedure, the District Joint Registrar by order dated 20.09.2016 allowed the said complaint and directed cancellation of sale deed dated 31.03.2000 standing in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18(4) of the said Act. As there was delay in filing that appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. By the impugned order the said delay has not been condoned.

4. Shri M.V.Amale, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the copy of the impugned order was received in March 2017 and prior thereto the petitioner was not aware about passing of the final order, there was delay in preferring the appeal. The same was not deliberate. As the sale deed standing in favour of the petitioner was invalidated by the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, he therefore submitted that the delay ought to have been condoned to enable adjudication on merits.

5. Shri U.J.Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 supported the impugned order. He submitted that though the complaint filed by the respondent no.4 was allowed on 20.09.2016, the appeal was belatedly filed without any sufficient explanation. The reasons given in the application were not liable to be accepted. It was therefore submitted that no interference was called for with the impugned order.
Shri V. A. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for respondent no.4.

6. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the fact that the copy of the order dated 20.09.2016 was received by the petitioner in March, 2017 and therefore the appeal was not filed within a period of one month from the date of the order. The appeal was filed after the period of limitation on 06.06.2017. In the light of the fact that the copy of the order was received by the petitioner in March 2017 coupled with the fact that sale deed standing in favour of the petitioner has been invalidated, an opportunity for pursuing the appeal on merits deserves to be granted. Same would however be subject to the petitioner paying costs to the respondent no.4.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co­operative Societies refusing to condone the delay is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal stands condoned subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. two thousand five hundred to the respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks from today. If the costs are paid, the respondent no.1 shall proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.