By MAAK Legal | Founded by Akash Agarwal
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice, holding that a revisional authority cannot refuse to consider an application for condonation of delay solely on the ground that the matter has been reserved for orders.
In RNA Mirage Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4854, decided on 2 December 2025, Justice Amit Borkar set aside an order of the revisional authority which had declined to entertain a delay condonation application on the premise that the proceedings had already been closed for judgment.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose under Section 154B–29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Registrar had rejected certain applications filed by the petitioner housing society, following which revision applications were preferred before the revisional authority.
However, these revision applications were filed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner therefore sought condonation of a delay of 138 days. The application for condonation was moved at a stage when the revisional authority had already reserved the matter for orders.
The revisional authority rejected the condonation application on the ground that once a matter is closed for orders, no further applications can be entertained.
Submissions Before the High Court
The petitioner contended that:
- The delay of 138 days was not excessive.
- The Act does not prohibit filing an application for condonation of delay before the final order is pronounced.
- The revisional authority was duty-bound to examine whether sufficient cause existed instead of rejecting the application on a purely technical ground.
The State opposed the writ petition, arguing that once the matter was fixed for judgment, the right to seek condonation stood curtailed.
Findings and Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court rejected the approach adopted by the revisional authority. The Court held that:
- The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act does not impose any embargo on filing a condonation application before the final decision is delivered.
- A lis continues to remain pending until the authority pronounces its order. Merely reserving the matter for judgment does not terminate the proceedings.
- Procedural rules must serve the cause of justice and not defeat substantive rights.
The Court further observed that disputes relating to recovery of dues by housing societies require a liberal and rational approach, particularly where the delay is not inordinate.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 19 October 2021 and directed that the revision applications be restored to the file of the revisional authority. The authority was instructed to issue notice, grant due opportunity of hearing, and decide the application for condonation of delay on merits.
MAAK Legal’s Role and Perspective
The petitioner was represented by Nausher Kohli, along with Jehan Fouzdar and Akash Agarwal, appearing through MAAK Legal.
Commenting on the judgment, Akash Agarwal, Founder of MAAK Legal, noted that the ruling reinforces a well-settled principle that procedural rigidity should not obstruct access to justice.
“This decision is an important reminder that authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers must focus on whether sufficient cause exists, rather than shutting out claims on hyper-technical grounds. Reserving a matter for orders does not extinguish a party’s statutory right,” Agarwal observed.
Under Akash Agarwal’s leadership, MAAK Legal continues to represent cooperative societies and stakeholders in complex regulatory and recovery disputes, with a strong emphasis on balancing procedural compliance with substantive fairness.
Source Reference:
Bombay High Court decision reported by SCC Online
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/05/bom-hc-revisional-authority-cannot-reject-delay-condonation-matter-reserved-for-orders/