1 of 4 908-wp-7693-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7693 OF 2023 Keshav Tolani (since deceased) through L.R. Deepak Keshav Tolani ..Petitioner Versus Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Mumbai Division & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Nimay Dave a/w. Aditi Bhargava & Shikha Jain i/b. Divya Shah Associates for Petitioner. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for State/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. S. B. Pawar, Lubha Shaikh, Kajol Shah and Utkarsh Pawar i/b. S. K. Legal Associates LLP for Respondent No.3. Mr. Rashmin Khandekar a/w. Pranav Nair i/b. Subhash Bane for Respondent No.4. __________ CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025 PC : 1. I have considered the challenge raised by the petitioners. The dispute centres on the order of the Revisional Authority by which a delay of 740 days in filing the revision has been condoned. The delay is substantial. The power to condone such delay must be exercised after recording satisfaction that the cause shown is Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.14 15:06:53 +0530 2 of 4 908-wp-7693-23 reasonable and supported by material. The Court must examine whether the litigant acted with due diligence. These are settled tests. The matter requires scrutiny on the touchstone of these principles. 2. The explanation offered by the Developer is that he was not a party to the original proceedings under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. He states that he gained knowledge of the order only after its consequences began to affect his interest. He asserts that he moved the Revisional Authority without further delay. The Revisional Authority accepted this explanation. The reason is simple. A person who is not impleaded cannot be expected to participate. Once he claims to have acquired knowledge later, the Authority must examine whether the claim is bona fide. On the record, the Revisional Authority found the explanation acceptable. The reasoning does not appear perverse. 3. The core issue that arises is whether the Developer has a right to contest an order under Section 22(2). As a general rule, such proceedings concern a claim for membership based on title. The statute contemplates scrutiny of the applicant’s documents. The promoter or developer usually has no role at this stage. The matter stands between the applicant and the society. Courts have consistently held that the promoter ordinarily has no locus to object to the admission of a member. 4. The present case stands on distinct facts. The material 3 of 4 908-wp-7693-23 shows that the Promoter executed a Development Agreement with the society. The agreement sets out clear obligations. It binds the Promoter to provide 3984 square feet of built-up area to seven tenants or occupants without monetary consideration. The list of these beneficiaries forms part of Exhibit A. The agreement further directs the Promoter to allot 1982 square feet of built-up area to four specified members of the society on ownership basis. This list is at Exhibit B. These obligations are precise. They create corresponding rights in identifiable persons. 5. At this stage, there is no material placed by the petitioners to show that the Promoter discharged these obligations. Clause 9 of the Development Agreement remains unfulfilled. The beneficiaries have instituted a suit for specific performance. These circumstances show that the contractual rights created by the agreement survive and remain enforceable. The rights in the concerned premises cannot be treated as extinguished or transferred. 6. The record thus suggests that the right, title and interest in the units continue to vest in the Promoter. When such rights subsist and are subject matter of pending civil proceedings, the Promoter has a direct stake. If membership is conferred in respect of the same units without hearing the Promoter, his rights may be irreversibly affected. In such a situation, the Promoter cannot be treated as an outsider. He has a legitimate claim to be heard. The 4 of 4 908-wp-7693-23 doctrine of natural justice requires that a person whose proprietary rights are likely to be affected must be afforded an opportunity to contest. 7. The fact that he was not impleaded in the proceedings under Section 22(2) assumes importance. Despite having a subsisting interest in the property, he was not given notice. His grievance therefore carries weight. The Revisional Authority considered these aspects and condoned the delay. The order reflects a balanced approach. The condonation serves the purpose of advancing justice in the facts of this case. 8. This reasoning supports the view that the Revisional Authority acted within jurisdiction. The explanation for the delay is acceptable. The Promoter has made out a case showing sufficient cause. 9. There is no merit. The petition stands dismissed. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)