BABURAO DEORAO WANKHEDE Vs. SEWA SAHAKARI SANSTHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has arisen out of the proceedings initiated bey the respondent No. 1 Sewa Sahakari Sanstha, under section 9 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, before the Co-operative Court, Nagpur, 8 opponents were joined as parties by the respondent No. 1 (Sewa Sahakari Sanstha). Respondent No. 2 Babasaheb Kinkhede was joined as opponents No. 7 and the petitioner was joined as opponent No. 8. It was contended that the respondent No. 1 Society owned a truck and that it was given to respondent No. 2 on hire but Babasaheb Kinkhede, instead of paying the hire charges misappropriated the amount of the Society. The Co-operative Court passed an Award vide order dated 31st March, 1968 declaring that the amount of Rs. 25, 950/- should be recovered from the opponents Nos. 7 and 8 i.e., the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the opponents Nos. 1 to 6. The award was challenged by way of appeals by opponents Nos. 1 to 7. The petitioner did not challenge the award. The appeals were partly allowed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court by its common judgment dated 8-7-1970, inasmuch as opponents Nos. 7 and 5 were exonerated. The petitioner filed a review petition on 13-7-1976 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, challenging the order dated 8-7-1970 passed by it. The review came to be rejected by the appellate Court vide order dated 27-10-1977. The review was essentially rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not file any appeal. The order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 249/1978 before this Court. The writ petition was rejected with liberty to enable the petitioner to file fresh petition, if necessary, after exhausting remedies available under the Act. It was further observed by this Court "that the petitioner can file an appeal even now explaining delay as it appears that he had good grounds for not filing independent appeal in time." The writ petition came to be rejected as premature. The appeal was filed by the petitioner on 13-2-1978 before the Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay. The appellate Court rejected the appeal vide order dated 16-7-1979. The appeal came to be rejected essentially on the ground that it was barred by time by about 10 years and it is under these circumstances that this Court has been moved for quashing the order dated 16-7-1979 as well as the award dated 31-3-1968.

(2.) Mr. Manohar contended that the petitioner came to know about the Award dated 31-3-1968 for the first time on 9-4-1976 and thereafter he was continuously pursuing his remedy some time by way of review petition and some time by way of writ petition. He further contended that this Court allowed him to withdraw the writ petition so as to enable him to exhaust all remedies available under the Co-operative Act. This Court also made observation that the appeal could also be filed even though it was barred by time provided the delay could be properly explained. Having regard to all these facts Mr. Manohar contended that it would be too harsh to reject his request on the ground of limitation. He has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in A.I.R. 1987 S. C. 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another v. Mst. Katiji & others ) He has particularly relied on the observation of the Supreme Court made in para 3 of its judgment. The material portion thereof reads as under :--- "The legislature has conerred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principal as it is realized that :-

(3.) Mr. Manohar invited my attention to the application filed by respondent No. 1 and contended that the application under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was not tenable against the petitioner. He has also invited my attention to Explanation 2 of section 91(3), the material portion of which reads as under :-