Allowed

Dattatraya Chandrakant Deshmukh v. Pushpa Vasant Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2007WP/4538/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition condoning a delay in filing a Revision Petition due to the petitioner's advocate's negligence. The impugned order rejecting the condonation application was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the District Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the delay in filing the Revision Petition stands condoned, and the Revision Petition is remanded to the District Court for hearing on merits.

Dattatraya Chandrakant Deshmukh Vs Pushpa… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 4538 of 2003

¶5

 Dattatraya Ramchandra Deshmukh .. Petitioner

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Pushpa Vasant Mane & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.N.J. Patil for the petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.Dilip Bodake for respondent no.1.

¶10

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J

¶11

 DATED : 23rd April 2007.

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. While issuing notice to the respondents this

¶14

 Court by an order dated 22nd July 2003 directed that
 the Writ Petition be disposed of finally at the
 admission stage itself. Accordingly, it is heard
 finally.

¶15

 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and

¶16

 respondent no.1.

¶17

¶18

 3. Respondent no.2 and 4 to 9 are served and
 are absent. Counsel for the parties state that the
 respondent no.1 was the original plaintiff and
 respondent nos.2 to 9 are not contesting the
 petition. Hence, issuance of Rule to respondent no.2
 and respondent nos.4 to 9 is dispensed with and
 respondent no.3 is deceased.

¶19

 4. This Writ Petition is directed against the
 judgement and order dated 1st July 2003 passed by
 learned Addl. District Judge, Satara rejecting the
 application for condonation of a delay in filing of a
 Revision Petition by the petitioner.

¶20

 5. The delay in question is about three years
 and six months. Counsel for the petitioner states
 that the reason for the delay is that the advocate
 for the petitioner did not inform him the date of
 hearing nor did he inform the decision. The
 petitioner was therefore not aware of the decision
 and therefore, could not file the revision petition
 earlier. The fact that the petitioner’s advocate did
 not inform him the date nor did he inform the
 decision is not disputed before me. In the

¶21

¶22

 circumstances, in my view, the delay ought to have
 been condoned. Counsel for the respondent no.1 also
 did not seriously canvass that the delay should not
 have been condoned. but submitted that prejudice is
 being caused to him by grant of interim stay to
 execution of a decree in this Writ Petition. In my
 view since the stay was only during pendency of the
 Writ Petition it would automatically come to an end
 on decision of the Writ Petition. It is however open
 to the petitioner to apply for stay before the
 District Judge who would consider the application if
 made to it, on its own merits.

¶23

 6. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is
 allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The

¶24

 delay in filing of the Revision Petition before the
 District Court stands condoned. The District Court
 shall hear the Revision Petition on its own merits.
 Petitioner shall pay to the respondent costs of the
 petition which are quantified at Rs.5,000/- within 8
 weeks failing which the Writ Petition shall stand
 dismissed.

¶25

¶26

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

Dattatraya Chandrakant Deshmukh v. Pushpa Vasant Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Chandrakant Deshmukh v. Pushpa Vasant Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Babu Anchan Vs Laxman Ramji Khewara

Yashwant Kashinath Patil Vs Shankar Ganpat Patil and Ors.

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation Vs M/S. Shiv Shakti Builders and Developers

Seshagiri Tirumalarao Baru and Anr. Vs Morgan John Miranda and Ors.

The Nasik District Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs Pruthviraj Nimba Kor and Ors.

Sukhamani Juhu Himalaya Go-Op.Housing Soc.Ltd. Vs N.L.Peshwani and Ors.