Single judge allowed condonation of delay in a first appeal, imposing costs on the appellant for administrative lapse, and directed stay of execution pending deposit of decretal amount.
Condonation of delay with the appellant depositing costs of Rs. 10,000/- and the decretal amount; stay of execution proceedings upon deposit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3729 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3730 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.16217 OF 2007
The Executive Engineer,.
Public Works Division,.
Central Building, Pune-1, & Anr....Applicants
V/s.
Rajaram Shankar Salunke...Respondent
Mr.K.K. Tated, AGP, for the Applicants.
Mr.R.S. Apte with Mr.M.V. Limaye, Advocates, h/f.
Mr.N.R. Bubna, for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.N. PATEL &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C. :
1.Heard.
2.This is an application for condonation of
delay in preferring the Appeal against the judgment and
decree passed against the appellants in Special Civil
Suit No.02 of 1993, wherein the Trial Court has passed
a judgment and decree against the appellants directing
them to pay a sum of Rs.16,33,716/- to the
respondent-original plaintiff with interest @ 12% from
the date of the suit till its realization.
3.It is the case of the applicants that delay
: 2 :
was a result of administrative and procedural
exigencies, as several persons are involved in the
decision making process.
4.On going through the Civil Application, this
Court finds that though the District Government
Pleader, Pune, conveyed to the Executive Engineer, PWD,
Central Building, Pune, on 13-3-2007 that an Appeal
should be preferred against the judgment and decree,
the PWD Department could not take proper steps for
almost two months i.e. from 26-4-2007 till 4-7-2007 in
spite of the fact that Mr.Arun U. Arkadi was appointed
for handling the matter.
5.Though the Application is contested by the
respondent-decree holder on the ground that there is no
good and sufficient cause made out and, therefore, the
Application for condonation of delay deserves to be
rejected, in order to give fair opportunity to the
respondent, we are inclined to condone the delay but
subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid
by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Central Building, Pune,
who at the relevant time was holding the office, from
his own pocket for the lapse on his part to take prompt
decision in the matter.
6.The costs to be deposited within a period of
four weeks from today. On such costs being deposited,
: 3 :
the respondent would be entitled to withdraw the same.
We make it clear that if the cost is not deposited
within the stipulated period, the Application would
stand rejected without any further reference to the
Court. On such costs being deposited, the Appeal be
registered and listed for admission.
7.On the appellants-applicants depositing the
decreetal amount with costs within a period of four
weeks in the Trial Court, there will be stay of
execution proceedings. C.C. expedited.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay in preferring a first appeal should be allowed despite administrative lapse.
Whether costs should be imposed on the appellant for the delay caused by the procedural exigencies of the department.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Central Building, Pune & Anr.
Rajaram Shankar Salunke
J.N. PATEL
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court