Dismissed

The State Central Library Town Hall v. Deepak Pandharinath Shelte and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2009CAL/224/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a civil appeal as barred by time. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without further consideration, noting the original writ petition invoked under Article 227 was not appealable.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Appeal did not survive for consideration.

The State Central Library Town Hall Vs Deepak… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO. 11451 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9013 OF 2005

¶4

The State Central Library, Town Hall, Mumbai.

¶5

..Applicant.

¶6

v/s.

¶7

Shri Deepak Pandharinath Shelte & Anr.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr.A.P.Vanarse, AGP for applicant.

¶10

Mr.R.D.Bhat for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J

¶12

DATED :- DECEMBER 11, 2009.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

We have heard Counsel appearing for the parties. There is delay of 1

¶15

year and 335 days in filing the Appeal. The Application hardly states any cause, much less sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Judgment

¶16

¶17

in question was dated 27^th April, 2006. The certified copy of which was applied on 4^th April, 2008. There is no justification whatsoever for not applying the certified copy in time. Besides, no plausible explanation has been given as to why appeal was not filed immediately thereafter. It is true that State is entitled for liberal view as far as condonation of delay is concerned but certainly it cannot be treated as a different class by itself and therefore entitled to condonation of delay. Once appeal becomes barred by time, the Court should decide in favour of the Respondents. Present appeal is hopelessly barred by time and no plausible explanation has been rendered for condonation of delay. We may refer to Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd.Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui

¶18

Vs. Deputy Director of Health Services[2008(6) Mh.L.J.941], wherein delay was not condoned by the Court. In paragraph-7 of the reply filed by the Respondent No.1, it has also been stated that even earlier Petition had been filed being Writ Petition No.7103 of 2005, which was decided on 23^rd November, 2007. In other words, State had noticed even connected Petition. This fact is not disclosed though a material fact. Even otherwise, the Appeal is not maintainable as the original Writ Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

¶20