Dismissed

Shri Jagdish Dwarkadas Keswani v. Smt. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014CAC/243/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a civil revision. The court held that the applicant's reasons were insufficient and that hardship alone is not a ground for extending limitation. Consequently, the revision was not entertained.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Jagdish Dwarkadas Keswani Vs Smt. Asha… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

243.14-cac

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.243 OF 2014 IN

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.10118 OF 2014

¶5

Jagdish Dwarkadas Keswani

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Asha Menghraj Gehi & Ors.

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

Mr. Datta Pawar for the Applicant None for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED : JUNE 25, 2014

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. This Application is preferred by the original Defendant No.5 for condonation of 4 years and 303 days delay in filing the Civil Revision Application challenging the judgment and decree dated 9^th February 2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.462 of 2007.

¶14

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant applied for certified copies of judgment passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 11^th February 2009 and same was ready for delivery on 27^th February 2009. He submits that the Applicant's earlier Advocate filed Writ Petition No.727 of 2010 in this court challenging the judgment and decree dated 9^th February 2009. That

Basavraj G Patil

1/4

243.14-cac

Writ Petition stood rejected by order dated 4^th February 2000 on the ground that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as a remedy of filing Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available.

¶19

The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that as none appeared on behalf of the Applicant in said Writ Petition No.727 of 2010 when the order dated 4^th February 2010 was passed, they had no knowledge about the same. He further submits that the Applicant is not conversant with the computer and therefore he could not keep track on the matter through Internet. He submits that in the month of March 2008 one of his relatives visited his residence who was conversant with computer and at that time, the Applicant requested him to verify the status of the Writ Petition. At that time, the Applicant came to know that the Writ Petition stood dismissed. Thereafter the Applicant immediately contacted his earlier Advocate. At that time, the Applicant contacted his Advocate and informed about the matter. At that time said Advocate informed the Applicant that as she practices exclusively at Small Causes Court at Bombay she could not keep track of the matter and hence she failed to inform about listing of the matter. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the Applicant relies on paragraph 15 of the Civil Application. On the basis of this submission the learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in the interest of justice delay in preferring the Civil Revision Application may be condoned. He submits that if the delay is not condoned, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the Applicant. He submits that the Applicant has good chance of success in the present proceedings.

Basavraj G Patil

2/4

243.14-cac

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant at length. In the present proceedings, the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court passed the impugned order on 9^th February 2014. Thereafter within 10 months the Applicant filed Writ Petition No.727 of 2010. Though that Writ Petition was dismissed by this court on 4^th February 2010, the Applicant filed the present Civil Revision Application on 28^th March 2014 i.e. after more than 4 years. It is to be noted that even at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, same was filed after more than 8 months. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing Civil Revision Application. The reasons given by the Applicant in paragraph 16 of the Civil Application for condonation of delay cannot be construed as sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

¶24

The Apex Court in the matter of Damodar Pillai Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd, 2005(5) All.M.R. 961 (SC) held that hardship or injustice is not a ground for extending the period of limitation.

¶25

The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Ex.Engg. Jalgaon Medium Project and Ors, 2008(6) BCR 513 held that unless and until sufficient cause is shown, inordinate delay should not be condoned.

¶26

The Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara & Anr, 2009(3) SCC pg 525 held that while dismissing an Appeal on the ground of limitation, going into the merits of the case is not allowed.

Basavraj G Patil

3/4

243.14-cac

The Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in 2010 (5) SCC 459, held that in the absence of sufficient cause, Court should not condone the delay.

¶31

The Apex Court in the case of B. Madhuri Gaud Vs. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) SCC 693 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, delay should not be condoned.

¶32

Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Esha Bhattacharajee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013(12) S.C 450 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, application for condonation of delay needs to be rejected.

¶33

Considering the reasons stated by the Applicant in paragraph 16 of the Civil Application and the law laid down by the Apex Court as stated hereinabove, I do not find any substance in the present Civil Application. Hence, same stands dismissed.

¶34

In view of dismissal of the Civil Application for condonation of delay, the present Civil Revision Application does not survive. Hence, registration of the same stands rejected.

¶35

Basavraj G Patil

¶36

4/4

Shri Jagdish Dwarkadas Keswani v. Smt. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Jagdish Dwarkadas Keswani v. Smt. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority and Anr. Vs Mr. Pandurang Sitaram Sawant

Vatsalya B Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Smt. Tahera Ali Athar Khan and Ors.

Shri Virendra K. Vora Vs Manhar Chs Ltd. and Anr.

Somprakash Rambabu Agrawal Vs Shri Bholedasji Temple

Ibrahim G. Shaikh and Ors. Vs Fizza Najmuddin Khambatti and Ors.

Suresh Pragji Mirani and Other Vs Maruti Sakharam Prabhani Deceased and Others