Allowed

Dnyanoba Venkuram Iralapalle v. Nagnath Venkuram Iralapalle and Others

Bombay HC28 Jul 2015WP/5557/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed to condone procedural delay in restoration of a dismissed civil suit. Court upheld petitioner's right due to adverse circumstances preventing attendance and issued directions for avoiding future delays with cost implications.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in Order 'B' for condonation of delay. Petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as costs; trial court to dispose suit within eight months.

Dnyanoba Venkuram Iralapalle Vs Nagnath Venkuram… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2015)

{1}

wp5557-14

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5557 OF 2014

¶6

Dnya Age R/o Distr	noba s/o Venkuram Iralapalle - 43 years, Occ- Agriculture & Labour Gitta, Taluka - Ambajogai, ict - Beed	PETITIONER
	VERSUS
1.	Nagnath s/o Venkuram Iralapalle Age - 70 years, Occ - Retired R/o Laxmiprasad Niwas, Godawari Colony, Vaijapur Taluka - Vaijapur, District - Aurangabad	RESPONDENTS
2.	Bhagwat s/o Venkuram Iralapalle, Age - 68 years, Occ - Retired R/o Tilak Nagar (Behind Court) Latur, Taluka and District - Latur
3.	Shakuntala w/o Vidyasagar Phafgire Age - 55 years, Occ - Household R/o Halni, Taluka - Ahmadpur District - Latur
4.	Kamalbai w/o Murlidhar Palmate Age - 54 years, Occ - Household R/o Kopla, Taluka - Ahmadpur District - Latur
5.	Panchaphulla w/o Nivertirao Badame, Age - 53 years, Occ - Household R/o Gunale Galli, Ahmadpur Taluka - Ahmadpur
6.	Anita w/o Bharat Chamle, Age - 48 years, Occ - Household R/o Baliraja Mangal Karyalaya, C/o Uttam Daudame, Baliraja Colony, Rahatani Pune District - Pune

¶7

wp5557-14

¶8

{2}

¶9

Vimal w/o Bhagwat Iralapalle, Age - 62 years, Occ - Household R/o Tilaknagar (Behind Court) Latur

¶10

Suresh s/o Venkuram Iralapalle, Age - 57 years, Occ - Agriculture R/o Gitta, Taluka - Ambajogaji District - Beed

¶11

Chandrakant s/o Venkuram Iralapalle, Age - 50 years, Occ- Agriculture R/o Gitta, Taluka - Ambajogai, District - Beed

¶12

Padminbai w/o Venkuram Iralapalle, Age - 88 years, Occ - Household R/o Gitta, Taluka - Ambajogai

¶13

Prakash s/o Venkuram Iralapalle, Age - 55 years, Occ - Agriculture R/o Gitta, Taluka - Ambajogai, District - Beed

¶14

Mr. M. M. Patil (Beedkar) Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ajinkya Reddy h/f Mr.S.N.Morampalle, Adv. R-1, 2, 7 to 10

¶15

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶16

DATE : 28th JULY, 2015

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned advocates for the appearing parties finally.

¶19

The petition has been moved against order dated 30^th

¶20

{3} wp5557-14

¶21

January, 2014 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.32 of 2011 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai, refusing to condone delay of about nine months and twelve days in restoration of the suit dismissed on 23^rd April, 2010.

¶22

Learned advocate for the respondents contends that having regard to legal position, limitation starts running from the date of dismissal and date of knowledge is of little consequence. He further purports to submit that as a matter of fact, it appears that the petitioner had knowledge about dismissal of the suit on 23^rd April, 2010 itself.

¶23

After hearing learned advocates for the appearing parties, the position emerges that the dismissal of the suit on 23^rd April, 2010 had occurred under the circumstances, when neither the lawyer nor the plaintiffs could attend the proceedings in the suit.

¶24

The petitioner has reasoned out the delay, referring to that the lawyer did not inform about dismissal of the suit. This position though is tried to be contested submitting that by affidavit of the person, the claim ought to be substantiated, however, perusal of the impugned order shows that this contention has been taken into account by the trial court which is evident from the reasons as are appearing in paragraph No.7

¶25

{4}

¶26

wp5557-14

¶27

of the impugned order.

¶28

The trial court had considered that there is no sufficient reason given for further delay from 4^th January, 2011, the date on which the petitioner contends that he had knowledge about dismissal of the suit on 23^rd April, 2010 and the application had been filed on 3^rd February, 2011, not within one month from 4^th January, 2011. However, looking at the dates it is discernible that , there appears to be no delay at all.

¶29

Looking at that valuable rights of the petitioner are concerned in the immovable property and generally, litigants do not stand to gain anything from causing deliberate delay and in this case, it is sought to be explained by the petitioner and the circumstances though are disputed, pedantic approach may not sub-serve cause of justice.

¶30

Taking into account the guide lines as have been referred to in paragraph No.3 of decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another V. Mst. Katiji and Others ”, I deem it appropriate that inconvenience being caused to the defendants can be met with and mended by awarding suitable costs, proportionate to the quantum of delay.

¶31

{5}

¶32

wp5557-14

¶33

Under the circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. Having regard to that there are eleven respondents, but, respondent No.11 is a plaintiff, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.1000/- to each of the defendant, that is to say in aggregate the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/towards costs for condonation of delay, in the trial court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Said amount be paid to defendants @ Rs.1000/- per defendant.

¶34

Learned advocate for the respondents, at this juncture,

¶35

makes a request for expeditious disposal of the suit, having regard to that the suit is pending since 2010. As such, the trial court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶36

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶37

drp/wp5557-14

Dnyanoba Venkuram Iralapalle v. Nagnath Venkuram Iralapalle and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyanoba Venkuram Iralapalle v. Nagnath Venkuram Iralapalle and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Rangnath Khilari Vs the Manager, Wasan Automobiles and Another

Punjaram Bapurao Rajale and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prathiviraj @ Mansing Pralhad Patil Vs Mandabai Pralhad Patil and Others

Abdul Rahim Abdul Khadir and Another Vs Aayub Kha Wali Moh. Kha and Others

Indubai Damodhar Shinde and Others Vs Vishwanath Ganpati Satpute

Rasool Juma Kakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others