Dismissed

Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Bombay HC15 Jul 2016CAO/791/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a review petition. The court found the delay unexplained and noted that the original order condoning delay in the first appeal was not erroneous, as costs had already been received by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for condonation of delay in review was rejected; applications dismissed and disposed of without costs.

Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

cao791.16 and MCA St.No.8605.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.791 F 2016 AND

¶5

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.8605 OF 2016 (REVIEW)

¶6

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO.1234 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.3611 OF 2015 Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat

¶8

..vs..

¶9

State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and ors

¶10

....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶11

Shri Anand Parchure, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the Nonapplicants/State.

¶12

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : JULY 15, 2016.

¶13

Heard learned counsel Shri Anand Parchure

¶14

for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.R. Patil for the non-applicants/State.

¶15

Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No.8605 of 2016 is filed for seeking review of order dated 5.10.2015 passed on Civil Application (CAF) No.1234 of 2015 condoning delay of 229 days in filing First Appeal Stamp No.3611 of 2015. After condoning delay, that appeal has now been registered as First Appeal No.1084 of 2015. As there is delay of about 163 days in moving prayer for review, Civil Application

¶16

.....2/-

¶17

¶18

cao791.16 and MCA St.No.8605.16

¶19

(CAO) No.791 of 2016 has been taken out for its condonation.

¶20

Only the reason pressed into service for condonation is as contained in paragraph No.6 of the civil application. It is mentioned that the applicant is a senior citizen and has belatedly understood adverse impact of order condoning delay passed on 5.10.2015. The application has been presented on 15.4.2016. The relevant dates, like date on which order dated 5.10.2015 was communicated to her, how she understood adverse effect thereof or then what would be the adverse effect, are the facts not disclosed.

¶21

One of the contentions of learned counsel Shri Anand Parchure for the applicant was that this order condoning delay is being cited as a precedent in other matters. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically because it is condoned in one matter. Necessary facts must be looked into and it is always open to the landowners to point out distinguishing features in their matters whenever such orders are cited in precedent.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel Shri Anand Parchure for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.R. Patil for the nonapplicants/State, we find that order dated 23.3.2015 passed on Civil Application (CAF) Nos.59 and 261 of

¶23

.....3/-

¶24

cao791.16 and MCA St.No.8605.16

¶25

¶26

2015 refusing to condone delay, in identical challenge, has weighed with applicant in seeking review. The date, on which this order was brought to her notice, is also not on record.

¶27

In this situation, we find that delay of 163 days has itself not been properly explained. As such, prayer in Civil Application (CAO) No.791 of 2016 cannot be allowed.

¶28

Even on merits of Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No.8605 of 2016 it can be said that the finding in order dated 5.10.2015 that the concerned officer though busy in election duty, took some steps to file the first appeal, are not shown to be erroneous and perverse. While condoning delay, this Court has directed the State Government to pay the costs of Rs.3,000/- within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, costs have been received by the applicant.

¶29

In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, we find that Civil Application (CAO) No.791 of 2016 as also Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No.8605 of 2016 need to be dismissed. Accordingly, same are rejected and disposed of. No costs.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

!! BRW !!

¶32

...../-

Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jigar Metal Technoloby Pvt.Ltd. Thr. Its Duly Auth. Director Sharadchandra S/O Ishwarchandra Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 Others

Panjabrao S/O Ramrao Deshmukh Vs Dy. Director of Education, Amravati Division and 2 Others

Karuna Shankar Tiwari Vs the Collector / District Magistrate Amravati and Another

Sau. Latabai Narendra Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and Others

The State of Maharashtra, Represented by the Collector, Yavatmal and Anothers Vs Ravindra S/O Sitaram Deulkar and Anothers

State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others Vs Nikhil S/O Narendra Bhagat