JUDGMENT Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. For reasons indicated in the course of this judgment, leave is granted to amend the petition to incorporate challenge to order dated 21.10.2008 passed in revision application no. 754 of 2006 by the Deputy Joint Registrar - respondent no. 7. 3. Leave is granted to the petitioner to delete reference to the challenge to order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Collector, Raigad (Exhibit 'O' to the petition). Accordingly, civil application no. 2600 of 2013 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) only, by a separate order passed today. 4. This petition therefore is now directed against the following orders passed by the revisional authority under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the MCS Act") i.e. Deputy Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (respondent no. 7): (a) Order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 dismissing the revision application on the ground that upon conversion of the society into a Multi State Co-operative Society, the revisional authority under Section 154 of the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application; (b) Order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 174 of 2007 whereby the revisional authority declined to entertain the revision petition on the ground referred to in (a) above; (c) Order dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007, where the revision application was entertained but dismissed as having become infructuous on account of the sale of the property in pursuance of the impugned recovery certificate having been completed. 5. In the light of orders ultimately proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to advert to the detailed facts, particularly relating to the merits or demerits of the orders impugned in this petition. The facts and circumstances relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present petition are however adverted to with requisite brevity:- (A) Petitioners claim to be owners of property bearing Gat Nos. 506 and 507, Village Zirad, Taluka Alibaug, District Raigad admeasuring 1 Hectare 18 Ares and 19 Ares respectively in terms of registered Deed of Partition dated 28.09.2001. The dispute raised in this petition pertains to the said properties. (B) Respondent No. 4 i.e. M/s. Perfect Tools was a proprietary concern of the late Sakharam Narayan Bhogle (i.e. the father of the petitioners). (C) Respondent no. The dispute raised in this petition pertains to the said properties. (B) Respondent No. 4 i.e. M/s. Perfect Tools was a proprietary concern of the late Sakharam Narayan Bhogle (i.e. the father of the petitioners). (C) Respondent no. 5 i/e. M/s. Precision Tools is a partnership firm having following partners:- (a) Smt. Sunita Sakharam Bhogle (petitioners' mother) and (b) Deepak Sakharam Bhogle (petitioners' brother) (D) Respondent No. 4 proprietary concern, had availed of certain term loan and cash credit facilities from Maratha Mandir Co-operative Bank (now amalgamated with Respondent No. 1 i.e. Saraswat Co-operative Bank w.e.f. 20.03.2006). (E) Respondent No. 5 i/e. M/s. Precision Tools had also availed certain term loan and cash credit facility from Maratha Mandir Co-operative Bank Ltd. According to the petitioners, late Sakharam Narayan Bhogle was neither a partner of M/s. Precision Tools nor a guarantor to the loans taken by M/s. Precision Tools from the said bank. (F) On 28.08.2001 Maratha Mandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. Initiated two independent recovery proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5. (G) On 19.08.2002 Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 was brought into effect. The said 2002 Act repealed the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. (H) On 18.07.2003 Mr. Sakharam Bhogle i.e. the sole proprietor of respondent no. 4 expired. (I) On 22.03.2004 recovery certificate was issued against legal heirs of the late Mr. Sakharam Bhogle (i.e. petitioners herein and Sunita Sakharam Bhogle and Deepak Bhogle) for a sum of Rs. 22,48,968/-. (J) On 22.03.2004 recovery certificate was issued against respondent no. 5 for a sum of Rs. 89,00,000/-. (K) On 20.03.2006 Maratha Mandir Bank got amalgamated with the respondent no. 1 bank (which is Multi State Cooperative Bank). (L) On 28.11.2006 sale notice issued by respondent no. 1 bank for recovery of dues of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The notice included: (i) various properties belonging to petitioners as well as respondent no. 4; and (ii) immovable property exclusively belonging to petitioners under registered deed of partition dated 28.09.2001, (M) By letters dated 08.12.2006 and 11.12.2006 petitioners made enquiries about sale of flat at Ghatkopar and the machinery with the Special Recovery Officer (respondent no. 3). (N) On 21.12.2006 petitioners filed objections before SRO under Rule 107(19) of the MCS Rules against the sale notice dated 28.11.2006. (O) On 21.12.2006 the petitioners filed revision application no. 3). (N) On 21.12.2006 petitioners filed objections before SRO under Rule 107(19) of the MCS Rules against the sale notice dated 28.11.2006. (O) On 21.12.2006 the petitioners filed revision application no. 754 of 2006 before the respondent no. 7 questioning recovery certificate dated 22.03.2004 and sale notice dated 28.11.2006. (P) In March 2007 the petitioners filed revision application no. 158 of 2007 questioning sale notice dated 28.11.2006 and the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the SRO rejecting the petitioners’ objections to the sale. (Q) In April 2007 the petitioners filed revision application no. 174 of 2007 questioning sale notice dated 28.11.2006 and letter dated 24.03.2007 confirming the sale. (R) By separate orders dated 21.10.2008 the revisional authority i.e. respondent no. 7, dismissed revisional application no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same on account of conversion of the society into Multi State Co-operative Society with effect from 2002 and relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of Adarsh Ginning and Pressing Factory vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300 : (2007(5) ALL MR 364]. (S) By order dated 28.05.2007 the revisional authority i.e. respondent no. 7 rejected the revision application no. 158 of 2007 by holding that the same has become infructuous, as the sale in pursuance of recovery certificate and sale notice has been completed. (T) The Tahsildar of Alibaug, on basis of the aforesaid orders directed mutation in the revenue records. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the District Recovery Officer, Raigad, Alibaug on 16.03.2012. (Exhibit 'O' to the petition). 6. The challenge to Exhibit 'O' having not been pressed/dropped and leave having been granted to challenge order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006, this petition is now restricted to the challenge to orders referred to in paragraph (4) above. 7. The challenge with regard to orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application nos. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 is no longer res integra. In fact the same is entirely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 929 : (2009(4) ALL MR 72]. 8. The challenge with regard to orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application nos. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 is no longer res integra. In fact the same is entirely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 929 : (2009(4) ALL MR 72]. 8. The learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Abhyudaya, (2009(4) ALL MR 72] (supra) has in terms held that power of revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act is not affected by virtue of change in character/field of operation of the society which in turn may have triggered into operation of the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, the involuntary conversion into Multi State Cooperative Society, does not take away the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to proceed with a revisional applications pending on the date of such conversion. Accordingly orders passed by the revisional authorities dismissing revision applications for alleged want of jurisdiction came to be quashed and set aside and directions issued to the revisional authorities to proceed with the revision applications in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 of the MCS Act. The learned Single Judge in arriving at this decision has taken into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Adarsh Ginning, [2007(5) ALL MR 364] (supra), which was relied upon by the revisional authority in the present case to dismiss revision applications no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007. Incidentally even the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Adarsh Ginning, [2007(5) ALL MR 364] (supra) came to be set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 2204 of 2009 and 2205 of 2009 decided on 06.04.2009 (2009) 17 SCC 762 and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. 9. Mr. Samant appearing for respondent no. 1 bank and Mr. Talankar appearing for respondent no. 8 who is the purchaser of the properties in pursuance of recovery certificate and notice for sale however submitted that the petition is barred by gross delay and laches. As such, even though the point may have been covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Abhyudaya, [2009(4) ALL MR 72] (supra), the petition be not entertained. As such, even though the point may have been covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Abhyudaya, [2009(4) ALL MR 72] (supra), the petition be not entertained. They further submitted that the order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 had not even been challenged by the petitioner at the time of filing of the original petition. Only upon the respondents objecting to the maintainability of the petition for failure to challenge the said order, at an inordinate belated stage, the petitioner has applied for leave to challenge the said order. There is no explanation for the gross and inordinate delay in filing the petition in the year 2012 as also failure to challenge the order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006, in the first instance. 10. The considerations for entertaining the petition filed in the year 2012 wherein challenge was restricted to the orders dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007 and order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 174 of 2007 and the reasons for grant of leave to challenge the order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 are virtually the same. As such both the issues are considered together. 11. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 8 that there is some delay involved in the filing of the present petition. The petitioners have however submitted that they were pursuing matters with diligence before the revenue authorities, which proceedings culminated with the issue of order dated 16.03.2012 at Exhibit 'O' to the petition. 12. This petition has been filed in the month of July 2012. The petitioners have submitted that in execution of the recovery certificates impugned by them most of their properties have been sold, even though the recovery certificate was itself issued in breach of several legal provisions and properties which could not have even legitimately formed the subject matter of the recovery certificates have been sold. The petitioners submitted that in fact writ petition no. 2865 of 2011 had been filed for the purposes of impugning some of the orders passed by revisional authority, however, on account of some technical defects their Advocate withdrew the same on 24.04.2012 with liberty to file fresh petition. The petitioners submitted that in fact writ petition no. 2865 of 2011 had been filed for the purposes of impugning some of the orders passed by revisional authority, however, on account of some technical defects their Advocate withdrew the same on 24.04.2012 with liberty to file fresh petition. According to the petitioners, the challenges raised in the petition relate to jurisdictional issues, which in fact have been settled by this court in the case of Abhyudaya, [2009(4) ALL MR 72) (supra). The petitioners have submitted that they were victims of inadequate legal advise as also poverty. It is only after one of their close relatives has offered them some financial assistance, they were able to take recourse to proper legal remedies. In the circumstances, the petitioners have urged that though there is some delay in filing the present petition, the same may be condoned taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the matter including the circumstance that the petitioners have not acted malafide and were to the best of their abilities pursuing the matters before the revenue authorities. 13. Considering the aforesaid averments and submissions, in my judgment, this is not a matter which should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. There is a difference between delay per se and laches. Laches is not the mere physical running of time. Laches arise in a situation where, on account of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to invoke legal remedies, corresponding rights and equities arise in the contesting parties and it is totally inequitable to disturb the same. In the present case although there is some delay in filing of the petitions, which the petitioners have themselves acknowledged, it cannot be said that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The respondent no. 1 bank has already sold number of properties of the petitioners in the execution of the recovery certificates. It is not as if the petitioners have been totally indolent in the matter. They have been pursuing their remedies before the revenue authorities. Petition was filed in the year 2011 which was withdrawn in April 2012 with liberty. Soon thereafter the present petition has been filed. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the preliminary objection raised by the respondent nos. 1 and 8 that this petition be not entertained on the ground of delay and laches. Petition was filed in the year 2011 which was withdrawn in April 2012 with liberty. Soon thereafter the present petition has been filed. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the preliminary objection raised by the respondent nos. 1 and 8 that this petition be not entertained on the ground of delay and laches. 14. There is no dispute that the three revision applications pertained to the two recovery certificates and sale notices in pursuance of the same. It is quite clear that the omission to challenge order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 was inadvertent and by no means intentional. The petitioner had already filed the petition to challenge order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 174 of 2007 and order dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007. There was no oblique reason for the Petitioners to omit challenge to the order dated 21.10.2008 in Revision Application No. 754 of 2006. The Petitioners did not gain anything by such omissions. Rather than permit the petition to be defeated upon a mere technicality arising out of inadvertence, leave came to be granted permitting challenge to the order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006. As stated earlier, the challenge to the two orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application nos. 174 of 2007 and 754 of 2006 is no longer res integra. In fact Mr. Joglekar appearing for the petitioners contended that the order dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 is a nullity, in view of decision of this court in the case of Abhyudaya, [2009(4) ALL MR 72] (supra). 15. Coming now to the merits of challenge, the two orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this court in Abhyudaya, [2009(4) ALL MR 72] (supra). The respondent no. 7 has declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in him, on which ground the two orders are liable to be upset. Accordingly the orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 are quashed and set aside. The revision applications are restored to the file of the respondent no. 7 who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 16. In so far as order dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. Accordingly the orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 are quashed and set aside. The revision applications are restored to the file of the respondent no. 7 who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 16. In so far as order dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007 is concerned, once again, I am of the opinion that the revision application could not have been dismissed on the sole ground that the properties in question having been sold in pursuance of impugned recovery certificates, the revision application has become inrructuous. Besides from the perusal of the revision application, it is seen that several contentious issues had been raised by the petitioners. None of those issues have been even adverted to in disposing of the revision application no. 158 of 2007. On this short ground, the order dated 28.05.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007 is set aside. The revision application no. 158 of 2007 is restored to the file of respondent no. 7 who shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties made attempts to make submissions upon the merits and demerits of their respective cases in the context of recovery certificates, notices of sale, confirmation of sale and so on. However, no submissions/arguments on all these aspects were entertained, particularly as the revisional authority had not at least in revision application nos. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 dealt with any issue on merits. The said revision applications were disposed of only on the grounds of alleged lack of jurisdiction. In so far as revision application no. 158 of 2007 is concerned, although the revision application was entertained on merits, the disposal was by no means satisfactory. In the circumstances, it is made explicitly clear that this court has expressed no opinion whatsoever upon the merits and demerits of the case one way or the other. 18. Similar submissions were made by both parties on the issue of applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sub section 2A of Section 154 of the MCS Act. Once again such submissions have not been entertained by this court, as this a matter which is to be considered by the Deputy Joint Registrar C.S. Mumbai i.e. respondent no. 18. Similar submissions were made by both parties on the issue of applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sub section 2A of Section 154 of the MCS Act. Once again such submissions have not been entertained by this court, as this a matter which is to be considered by the Deputy Joint Registrar C.S. Mumbai i.e. respondent no. 7 at the stage of entertaining the revision applications which are now restored for his consideration. Accordingly it is made clear that this court has expressed no opinion whatsoever upon the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of sub section 2(A) of section 154 of the MCS Act and the issue is left open to be determined by the Deputy Joint Registrar i.e. respondent no. 7. 19. Although this petition is being allowed, in the facts and circumstances of the case it is just, fit and proper that the petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the respondent no.1 and respondent no. 8. There has been some delay in filing of the petition. There has been inadvertence in not challenging one of the orders. Although such delay has been held, as not sufficient for the purpose of not entertaining the petition, some inconvenience to Respondent Nos. 1 and 8 on this score, is not ruled out. Hence, the order for costs. 20. Accordingly the orders dated 21.10.2008 in revision application no. 754 of 2006 and 174 of 2007 and order dated 28.5.2007 in revision application no. 158 of 2007 are quashed and set aside. The three revision applications are restored to the file of the Deputy Joint Registrar, C.S. Mumbai i.e. respondent no. 7 who shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 21. The petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 8 within a period of four weeks from today. 22. Parties to appear before the Deputy Joint Registrar C.S. Mumbai, respondent no. 7 on 15.11.2013. 23. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated. 24. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. At this stage, Mr. Bhupesh Samant learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Ramesh Aiyar for respondent no. 8, upon pronouncement of the judgment and order pray that the operation be stayed for a period of eight weeks. 24. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the registry of this court. At this stage, Mr. Bhupesh Samant learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Ramesh Aiyar for respondent no. 8, upon pronouncement of the judgment and order pray that the operation be stayed for a period of eight weeks. In the interests of justice, rather than granting any stay as prayed for, the date of appearance before the respondent no. 7 is postponed to 02.01.2014 instead of 15.11.2013 as directed in paragraph 22 of the judgment. Petition allowed.