This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed against the District Court's order allowing the respondent an application for condonation of delay in appealing a decree for specific performance. The High Court found no perversity as the order was based on the material on record.
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 wp 2052.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2013
Bhimrao Shankarrao Kawade .. Petitioner
Versus
Navnath Vyankat Kawade .. Respondent
Shri Vikram S. Undre, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2013.
PER COURT :
. The suit filed by the present petitioner is decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed an appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 11 months 9 days. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present petition.
2 wp 2052.13
cannot be exercised in favour of a person who has not come to the Court with clean hands. The respondent herein was aware of the judgment and decree passed by the Court, wherein the suit filed by the present petitioner claiming specific performance is decreed. According to the learned counsel, even the mutation entry effected by the revenue authorities and the proceedings before the revenue authorities would testify that the respondent was aware of the said judgment and decree. The said facts were totally suppressed, even in the application present respondent states that he got the knowledge of the decree when he heard the same in the village. Whereas in the argument it was argued that he got the knowledge of decree after receiving summons of execution. This shows that false statements are made.
3 wp 2052.13
received the summons in the execution. Same is minor contrad ction. What has been argued by the learned counsel for the pet tioner does not appear on record in the form of say or documen s. The say filed on record does not give any details to suggest about how the present respondent got the knowledge of judgmen and decree. The say is filed in a very cryptic manner. The Di rict Court has decided the application on the basis of the avermen s made by the respondent and the petitioner. In the light o
that, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Distric Judge is perverse. The District Judge has exercised his discret on and passed plausible order on the basis of the material before im. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismiss d. No costs.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/March 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition challenging the district court's order allowing the respondent's application for condonation of delay.
Whether there was any perversity in the district court's discretion to allow the delay application despite alleged false statements by the respondent.
Whether the respondent came to the court with clean hands given the alleged suppression of facts regarding knowledge of the decree.
Bhimrao Shankarrao Kawade
Navnath Vyankat Kawade
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
