Pra Kai S. M. Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Chairman v. Anna Sampat Marathe And Others

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2407 OF 2016 Pra. Kai. Sambhappa Mogalikar Kamgar PETITIONER Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah. Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Mryadit, 86, Chittod Road, Dhule Through its Chairman Shri. Vijay Shivajirao Marathe Age - 50 years, Occ - Business R/o Dhule

VERSUS

1.

Anna Sampat Marathe RESPONDENTS Age - 60 years, Occ - Retired Plot No (6-B), A. N. No. 77 Pra. Kai. Sambhappa Mogalaikar Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah.

Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit 86, Chittod Road, Dhule 2.

Sanjay Shivajirao Marathe Age - 50 years, Occ - Business R/o 62, Shivshakti Colony, Chittod Road, Dhule 3.

Smt. Prabhavati Ramchandra Joshi, Age - 65 years, Occ - Nil R/o Deep Prabha Prerna Colony, Near TV Centre, Malegaon Camp Malegaon, District - Nashik .......

Mr. Vikram Anandrao Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 13 th AUGUST, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

{2} advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent. 2.

After hearing learned advocates, the position appears to be that respondent No. 1 herein had caused appearance in the dispute before co-operative court after summons had been received. It further transpires that the respondent had failed to prosecute matter further, under a plea having been told by some court ofÏcials that a subsequent summons would be issued to him about next date. This is how the explanation in respect of delay occurs at the instance of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had been working as a police ofÏcial and is a retired person. 3.

In such a case, even if some due and credibility is to be given to the plea, having regard to facts and circumstances, the dispute is of 2009 and appeal is preferred in 2015 in respect of a decision rendered in 2012, the cost awarded by the co-operative appellate court may have to be enhanced.

4.

As such, impugned order would be modified only to the extent of amount of costs referred to in clause 2 of the operative order dated 16th December, 2015. Instead of Rs.2,000/-, respondent No. 1 shall bear costs of Rs.20,000/- and he shall deposit the same by 31st December, 2018. Clause 2 in the operative order dated 16th December, 2015 of the co-operative appellate court stands modified and costs of Rs.20,000/- is

{3} imposed on respondent No. 1 instead of Rs.2,000/-. Learned advocate for respondent No. 1 submits that Rs.2000/- as directed, have already been deposited by respondent No. 1. As such, respondent No. 1 is supposed to deposit further amount of Rs.18,000/- within aforesaid period. Appeal, however, may proceed with expeditiously in the interregnum save final verdict till deposit of amount. Upon deposit of amount of costs, the petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the same. 5.

Writ petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/wp2407-16 Dinesh Ramrao Pawar by Dinesh Ramrao Pawar Date: 2018.08.14 14:36:53 +0530