of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The purported arrears included maintenance charges and other outgoings in respect of unsold premises in the suit building owned by the cooperative society. It was the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.3, as a developer holding unsold inventory, was liable to pay maintenance charges and outgoings to the society. By his order dated 21 March, 2014, the Deputy Registrar dismissed the recovery application on the ground that the issues raised in the application were triable; they called for evidence; and these issues could appropriately be tried before a Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Act. The matter was thereafter carried by the Petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar in revision. After hearing the revision application, the Divisional Joint Registrar remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar, whilst remanding the matter, observed that there was some dispute about calculation or quantum and that the defence was not of such nature where complicated and/or disputed questions of fact arose, which called for oral evidence or cross-examination. The Divisional Joint Registrar, accordingly, did not agree with the aforesaid observations of the Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar held that the application under Section 101 was maintainable and liable to be decided on merits. On this reasoning, the revision was allowed and the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Registrar. It is submitted that in the premises, the Deputy Registrar, on remand,
