Shri. Mohan Ganesh Gokhale v. Shri. Abhijit Ashok Turai And ORS.

ppn 1 15.wp-2208.17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2017 Mohan Ganesh Gokhale .. Petitioner Vs.

Abhijit Ashok Turai & Ors.

.. Respondents --- Ms.Anusha Amin for the petitioner.

Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the respondent nos.1 to 3. Ms.K.N. Solunke, AGP for the respondent no.4. --- CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 10th July 2018 P.C.:

.

By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 7th July 2016 passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur.

2.

The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent nos.1 to 3 in respect of flat No.1 admeasuring about 88.26 sq.mtrs. situated at Vasudev Bhavan, Sangli. The said agrement was subsequently registered bearing Registrarion No.3755/ 2012, 3753/2014 and 3754/2012 at the office of sub registrar, Kupwad. 3.

After 3 years of the registration of the said agreement, the applicant applied under the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014 before the learned District Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sangli for cancellation of the said agreement and other reliefs.

ppn 2 15.wp-2208.17.doc 4.

Learned District Registrar Co-operative Societies rejected the said application after recording various reasons. A revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 (4) of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, 2014 also came to be dismissed by an order dated 7th July 2016.

5.

Both the orders record various reasons and findings of facts which are not perverse. There was also gross delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the agreement for sale. The findings of facts rendered by the two authorities below being not perverse cannot be interferred with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could not show that the actual transaction was a money lending transaction and was not the sale transaction. The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. R.D. DHANUKA, J.