Megha 5_wp_1642_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1642 OF 2024 Mrs. Chhaya Bharat Zaveri ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. H.R. Pawar with Ms. Sonal Bhor for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP with Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi for Respondent -State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 2 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The case involves wife of the borrower creating hurdles in sale of Flat No.7 mortgaged by her husband in favour of the Respondent No.2- Bank. Husband of the Petitioner, Mr. Bharat Zaveri, who is proprietor of M/s. BKP Enterprises, availed loan facility from Respondent No.2-Bank by mortgaging Flat No.7. Upon default, the Bank has proceeded to attach and sell Flat No.7. The Bank secured an order from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 9 August 2019 thereby authorising the Recovery Officer to take possession of Flat No.7 for the purpose of cause of its sale. At this stage, the Petitioner filed an application before the Page No. 1 of 3 2 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:36199 Megha 5_wp_1642_2024 Recovery Officer posing before him a unique difficulty that Flat Nos.7 and 8 are amalgamated and that she is owner of Flat No.8. She complained to the Recovery Officer that if Flat No.7 is sold, her entry to Flat No.8 would get affected. She invoked jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer by seeking necessary directions by filing Exception Application dated 7 September 2019. By order dated 27 September 2019, the Recovery Officer granted time of 15 days to the Petitioner to make a separate arrangement for entry into Flat No.8. Revision preferred against order dated 27 September 2019 has been dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai vide order dated 11 November 2019. 2) Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Recovery Officer does not have jurisdiction to issue direction for making the arrangement for separate access to Flat No.8. He submits that statutory scheme of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 does not invest jurisdiction in the Recovery Officer to issue directions, which are contained in order dated 27 September 2019. 3) However, it is the Petitioner herself, who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer and invited directions dated 27 September 2019. More importantly, this Court has noticed that the real objective behind the Petitioner in filing objection before the Recovery Officer is to somehow save sale of Flat No.7 belonging to her husband. Thus common entry to Flat Nos.7 and 8 is used as a bogie to somehow defeat sale of Flat No.7. This Court cannot permit its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be misused Page No. 2 of 3 2 September 2026 Megha 5_wp_1642_2024 by the Petitioner for the purpose of achieving the objective of preventing sale of Flat No.7 mortgaged by her husband in favour of the Bank. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. 4) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 5) After the order is pronounced, Dr. Warunjikar prays for stay against actions proposed by the Bank for sale of flat No.8. Considering the observations made while rejecting the Petition, I am not inclined to grant any protection in favour of the Petitioner. Request for stay is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 2 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 16:02:27