Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra and Other v. Bhavan Motiram Pawar and Other

Bombay HC17 Aug 2012CAC/297/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing Civil Revision Applications by the State of Maharashtra against dismissed First Appeals for non-payment of court fee. The court allowed the appeals to be restored if the deficit fee is deposited within eight weeks, citing interest of justice and uniform precedents.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Applications allowed; delay in filing condoned; First Appeals restored if deficit Court fee is deposited within eight weeks.

The State of Maharashtra and Other Vs Bhavan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CAC293-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2012 IN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3494 OF 2011

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶7

Shri Tanaji Damu Chaure. … Respondent

¶8

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.294 OF 2012 IN

¶9

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3491 OF 2011

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & ors. … Applicants Vs.

¶11

Shri Nathu Daulat Barde (Sonawane) (-dead through his L.R's).. … Respondent

¶12

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.295 OF 2012 IN

¶13

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3488 OF 2011

¶14

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶15

Shri.Govind Yadav Bagul … Respondent

¶16

WITH

¶17

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.296 OF 2012 IN

¶18

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3484 OF 2011

¶19

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶20

Shri Jejiram Tulshiram Chaure. … Respondent

CAC293-12

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2012 IN

¶25

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3481 OF 2011

¶26

The State of Maharashtra & ors. … Applicants Vs.

¶27

Shri Mohan Bhavan Pawar & anr. … Respondents

¶28

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2012 IN

¶29

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3476 OF 2011

¶30

The State of Maharashtra & anr . … Applicants Vs. Shri Soma Lilu Jagtap. … Respondent

¶31

WITH

¶32

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2012 IN

¶33

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3463 OF 2011

¶34

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri.Tanaji Lasu Kuwar -dead through his L.R's) & anr. … Respondents

¶35

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2012 IN

¶36

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.28448 OF 2011

¶37

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Bhavani Valu Kokate. … Respondent

¶38

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 301 OF 2012 IN

¶39

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3486 OF 2011

¶40

¶41

CAC293-12

¶42

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Nathu Sayaji Chaudhari (-deceased through his L.R's). … Respondent

¶43

WITH

¶44

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.302 OF 2012 IN

¶45

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3466 OF 2011

¶46

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Janu Mangalu Chaure. … Respondent

¶47

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2012 IN

¶48

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3460 OF 2011

¶49

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Shankar Lahanu Jagtap. … Respondent

¶50

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.304 OF 2012 IN

¶51

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3433 OF 2011

¶52

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Budha Kalu Pawar (-dead through his L.R's). … Respondent

¶53

WITH

¶54

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.305 OF 2012 IN

¶55

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO.3437 OF 2011

¶56

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs. Shri Ramdas Ramji Chaudhari & anr. … Respondents

¶57

¶58

CAC293-12

¶59

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.306 OF 2012 IN

¶60

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3443 OF 2011

¶61

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶62

Shri Pundlik Kalu Kamadi. … Respondent

¶63

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.307 OF 2012 IN

¶64

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3472 OF 2011

¶65

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶66

Shri Soma Arjun Pawar. … Respondent

¶67

WITH

¶68

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2012 IN

¶69

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3468 OF 2011

¶70

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶71

Shri Motiram Laxman Pawar & anr. … Respondents

¶72

WITH

¶73

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2012 IN

¶74

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3470 OF 2011

¶75

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶76

Shri Pundlik Kalu Kamadi & ors. … Respondents

¶77

WITH

¶78

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.310 OF 2012 IN

¶79

¶80

CAC293-12

¶81

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3454 OF 2011

¶82

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶83

Shri Maniram Ratan Bagul. … Respondent

¶84

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.311 OF 2012 IN

¶85

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3425 OF 2011

¶86

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶87

Shri Laxman Durgya Chaure. … Respondent

¶88

WITH

¶89

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.312 OF 2012 IN

¶90

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3456 OF 2011

¶91

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶92

Shri Soma Arjun Pawar. … Respondent

¶93

WITH

¶94

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2012 IN

¶95

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3429 OF 2011

¶96

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶97

Shri Baburao Lahanu Jagtap. … Respondent

¶98

WITH

¶99

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2012 IN

¶100

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) NO. 3458 OF 2011

¶101

The State of Maharashtra & anr. … Applicants Vs.

¶102

Shri Motiram Pandu Chaudhari. … Respondent

¶103

¶104

CAC293-12

¶105

Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for applicants.

¶106

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR J. Friday, August 17, 2012.

¶107

P.C.:

¶108

This group of matters are Civil Revision Applications filed by the State of Maharashtra praying that the conditional orders passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) be set aside. By the conditional orders, the Registrar (Judicial -I) had directed the State of Maharashtra, who had filed First Appeals without paying the requisite Court fee, to pay the Court fee within period stipulated in the order. Since the appellant-State failed to deposit Court fee within the time prescribed, the conditional orders became operative and the First Appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. There is delay in filing the Civil Revision Applications and therefore, Civil Applications for condonation of delay have been filed along with Civil Revision Applications.

¶109

I have heard Shri A.R.Patil, learned AGP, who has pointed out the averments in the application setting out the reasons why delay occurred in filing the Civil Revision Applications. I have gone through the applications. I find the reasons to be sufficient to condone the delay in filing the Civil Revision Applications. Accordingly, the Civil Applications for condoning the delay in filing Civil Revision Applications are allowed.

¶110

The conditional order which was passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) was directing the applicant / State to deposit the amount of

¶111

¶112

CAC293-12

¶113

Court fee along with the First Appeals. It has been averred in the revision applications that the Office of the District Government Pleader forwarded the matter for opinion to the Law and Judiciary department, Mantralaya regarding filing the First Appeals. Since the procedure was taking some time, First Appeals came to be filed, depositing nominal Court fee. The Registrar (Judicial-I) granted two weeks time to pay the deficit Court fee and thereafter the Registrar (Judicial-I) passed a conditional order. The conditional order became operative and the First Appeals came to be dismissed. It is submitted that after the conditional order became operative, the acquiring body deposited a demand draft for payment of Court fee in all the first appeals, with the office of the Government Pleader High Court (A.S) Mumbai. The learned AGP submits that if some time is given to deposit the deficit Court fee, the Court fee will be immediately deposited, as the amount of Court fee is now lying with the Office of the Government Pleader.

¶114

Considering the fact that the applicant is State Government and that the applicant-State is now ready to deposit the Court fee and has given cogent reasons why the Court fee could not be deposited earlier, it will be in interest of justice to permit the applicant-State to deposit the Court fee and restore the First Appeals. Mr.Patil learned AGP, also points out that in similar set of circumstances this Court in group of matters (Civil Application No.508 of 2009 with Civil Revision Application No.712 of 2010 and other matters) has passed orders condoning the delay in filing Civil Revision Applications and the Civil Revision Applications also have been allowed by permitting the the State of Maharashtra to deposit the Court fee. I have perused the order dated 15 October 2010, which is placed on record. Facts and circumstances in those group of matters are similar to

¶115

¶116

CAC293-12

¶117

the facts and circumstances of the group at hand. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c) with a condition that the applicant-State shall deposit the deficit Court fee within a period of eight weeks from today. If the requisite Court fee is deposited and all other objections removed then the First Appeals be listed for admission on their assigned date. The Civil Applications and Civil Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶118

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

¶119

Mlns

The State of Maharashtra and Other v. Bhavan Motiram Pawar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Other v. Bhavan Motiram Pawar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayanrao Raosaheb Jadhav Vs Shri. Sahyadri Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. and Ors.

Susme Builders Private Limited Vs Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Ramdev D. Vishwakarma Vs the Principal, Holy Angel High School and 5 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Krushna Ranu Gavade and Other

The State of Maharashtra and Other Vs Mahadev Sopan Sarvade and Others

District Sperintendent of Police and Ors. Vs Ramesh Waman Shinde