JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order of Divisional Jt. Registrar passed on 22.03.2007 under which the petitioner's revision application No. 22/2006 came to be dismissed and consequently stay granted earlier came to be vacated. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is passed without hearing him and on this sole ground he requested to quash and set aside the impugned order. 3. The facts relevant to decide controversy involved in the petition are as under:- The District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Wardha passed an order on 29.11.2005/01.12.2005 thereby initiating enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act against the Directors of Wardha Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Urban Bank, Wardha. In pursuance of this order, notice under Section 88 also came to be issued. The petitioner, by filing revision before the Divisional Jt. Registrar under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 challenged the above said order passed by the District Deputy Registrar. The learned Divisional Jt. Registrar by order dated 12.04.2006 stayed the above said order of the District Deputy Registrar as well as subsequent notice issued in pursuance of the order. 4. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10, thereafter, preferred an application for intervention/for adding them as respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in the revision application. This application filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 10, though contested by the petitioner, came to be allowed by the Divisional Jt. Registrar by order dated 20.06.2006 and respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were added as respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in the revision application. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, on 11.09.2006 filed an application for reconsideration of order dated 20.06.2006 whereby respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were added as respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in the revision. The learned trial Judge without disposing of this application by order dated 22.03.2007 dismissed the petitioner's revision and stay, which was granted earlier, came to be vacated, which order is impugned in the present petition. 6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned was passed without hearing him and, therefore, on this sole ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate his argument, he relied upon Roznama and contended that he filed application for reconsideration of order dated 20.06.2006 on 11.09.2006. 6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned was passed without hearing him and, therefore, on this sole ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate his argument, he relied upon Roznama and contended that he filed application for reconsideration of order dated 20.06.2006 on 11.09.2006. On the same day, copy of application was given to Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and, therefore, case was adjourned to 20.09.2006. Thereafter, case was adjourned for 11.10.2006 and on 11.10.2006 case was closed for orders on application dated 11.09.2006 filed by the petitioner for reconsideration of order dated 20.06.2006. He further submitted that the learned Divisional Joint Registrar did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to argue on main revision, however, the impugned order is passed which required to be quashed and set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Per contra, Mr. Bhide, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 10 supported the impugned order. He denied the contention of the petitioner that he was not heard while disposing of the revision. He further contended that in any case the order challenged in the revision before the Divisional Jt. Registrar was passed on 29.11.2005/ 01.12.2005. The petitioner filed revision before the Divisional Jt. Registrar on 10.04.2006, obviously this revision is beyond the limitation. The petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the revision itself was barred. 8. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply submitted that the District Deputy Registrar's order which is challenged in the revision before Divisional Jt. Registrar was served on them for the first time on 25.03.2006 and, thereafter, the revision filed on 10.04.2006 is within limitation. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record along with compilation of the petition, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision on 10.04.2006 challenging the District Deputy Registrar's order and interim stay was granted in this revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 12.04.2006. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 applied on 26.04.2006 for adding them as party respondent in the revision, which application was allowed by Divisional Jt. Registrar by order dated 20.06.2006. The petitioner filed revision on 10.04.2006 challenging the District Deputy Registrar's order and interim stay was granted in this revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 12.04.2006. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 applied on 26.04.2006 for adding them as party respondent in the revision, which application was allowed by Divisional Jt. Registrar by order dated 20.06.2006. The petitioner, thereafter on 11.09.2006 filed an application for recalling/ reconsideration of earlier order passed by Divisional Jt. Registrar on 20.06.2006. 10. It is apparent from the Roznama that the petitioner's aforesaid application for recalling order dated 20.06.2006 was filed on 11.09.2006 and copy was given to respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and matter was adjourned to 20.09.2006. On 20.09.2006, the revision was adjourned to 11.10.2006. On 11.12.2006 at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner matter was adjourned to 12.10.2006 (wrongly written as 12.11.2006 in Roznama). On 12.10.2006 when the revision was placed before the Divisional Jt. Registrar, the counsel for the petitioner requested the Divisional Jt. Registrar to decide his application for reconsideration of earlier order dated 20.06.2006 and the case was closed for orders on the petitioner's application. It is apparent that thereafter on 22.03.2007, impugned order was passed. 11. There is no dispute that the learned Divisional Joint Registrar has not disposed of petitioner's application dated 11.09.2006 filed for reconsideration of order dated 20.06.2006, which still remains pending. Without disposal of that application for which case was closed, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar passed the impugned order and dismissed the petitioner's revision. I find force in the contention of the petitioner that he was never heard before passing the impugned order. On this ground alone, I am inclined to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Divisional Joint Registrar for hearing afresh. 12. The contention raised by Mr. Bhide, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 10 that revision itself was not filed within limitation is concerned, the same is already controverted by the petitioner by stating that the order of the Deputy Registrar was served on them on 25.03.2006. Since, the lower Authority namely Divisional Joint Registrar did not apply its mind to the issue of limitation, I am not inclined to go into the merits of this issue. In my opinion, the issue of limitation can also be decided by the Divisional Joint Registrar while disposing of the petitioner's revision afresh. 13. Since, the lower Authority namely Divisional Joint Registrar did not apply its mind to the issue of limitation, I am not inclined to go into the merits of this issue. In my opinion, the issue of limitation can also be decided by the Divisional Joint Registrar while disposing of the petitioner's revision afresh. 13. In view of above, I dispose of the petition by passing following order. (i) The impugned order dated 22.03.2006 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision No. 22/2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the revision afresh giving opportunity to both the sides. (ii) The Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to first decide petitioner's application dated 11.09.2006 filed for recalling/ reconsidering order dated 20.06.2006 whereby respondent Nos. 5 to 10 were allowed to be joined as respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to the revision application. (iii) Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are permitted to raise the issue of limitation before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar will decide this issue at the time of final disposal of Revision after hearing both the sides. (iv) The learned Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application dated 11.09.2006 in Revision Application No. 22/2006, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.