Counsel sought the petitioner's leave to delete parties absent from the lower court. The court granted leave, deleting respondents 3 and 4 at the petitioner's risk.
Leave granted to delete respondent nos. 3 and 4. Deletion to be carried out forthwith.
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.
WP No. 788/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 788 OF 2016
Mrs. Joanita Gonsalves, w/o late Mr. Joao Tedorio Gonsalves, aged 57 years, agriculturist, r/o H. No. 155, Vithalamordi, Quepem, Goa.
…. Petitioner
Versus
Deleted as per Order dated 23.01.2017
WP No. 788/2016
2
WP No. 788/2016
3
| 12. | Smt. Santana Dias e Carvalho, w/o Mr. Alex Carvalho, major of age,housewife, Both r/o H. No. 15, Bindimol, Copelabhat, Deao, Quepem, Goa. |
|
|---|---|---|
| 13. | Smt. Dulcina Cardozo e Fernandes (deceased) and her son, |
|
| 14. | Mr. Caetano Fernandes, s/o late Mr. Jose Fernandes, aged 46 years, businessman, and his wife, |
|
| 15. | Smt. Fatima Fernandes, aged 42 years, housewife, All r/o Covatem, Ambaulim, Quepem, Goa. |
|
| 16. | Shri Joaquim Santan Fernandes, s/o late Jose Fernandes, aged 44 years and his wife, |
|
| 17. | Smt. Sebastiana D'Costa, aged 38 years, housewife, Both r/o Covatem, Copelabhat, Quepem, Goa. |
|
| 18. | Smt. Sabina Fernandes, aged 38 years, and her husband, |
|
| 19. | Mr. Casmiro Fernandes, s/o Paulo Fernandes, aged 44 years, businessman, Both r/o Asagal, Copelabhat, Quepem, Goa. … |
. Respondents |
WP No. 788/2016
4
Mr. John Abreu Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8.
CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
DATE:- 23rd JANUARY, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to delete respondent nos. 3 and 4, as they were exparte before the Trial Court.
2. The deletion is permitted at the risk of the petitioner.
The deletion to be carried out forthwith.
3. Rule made returnable forthwith.
respondent nos. 5 to 8, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
framed and the matter was referred to the Mamlatdar. The
WP No. 788/2016
5
learned Mamlatdar by an order dated 20.12.2013, dismissed the reference in default of the petitioner.
WP No. 788/2016
6
meantime, the jurisdiction to entertain the revision application by the Mamlatdar was conferred on the District Judge). It appears from the record that the revision application was filed on 21.11.2014. An office objection was raised on the ground of limitation. Hence, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision application on 27.05.2015. According to the petitioner, the delay was of 92 days as the petitioner computed the delay upto the date of filing the revision application i.e. 21.11.2014
WP No. 788/2016
7
respondent nos. 5 to 8. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the impugned order passed.
WP No. 788/2016
8
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others , (2013) 12 SCC 649 ) and no party stands to gain by approaching the Court late (see the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 ). Considering the overall circumstances, I find that the delay in filing the revision application deserves to be condoned, subject to appropriate costs.
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
WP No. 788/2016
9
(b) The impugned order dated 13.07.2016, is hereby set aside, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-, payable to respondent nos. 5 to 8.
(d) The learned District Judge shall cause the revision application to be registered and shall decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law.
(e) Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
EV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing a revision application is computed from the date of filing of the application or from the date of filing the application for condonation of delay when the original application
Whether the court can condone a delay of 92 days in filing a revision application if the applicant has suffered no prejudice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and OthersReferred¶54
(2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs. Mst. KatijiReferred¶54
(1987) 2 SCC 107 · Who else cites this
Mrs. Joanita Gonsalves
Smt. Antoneta D'Costa e Gonsalves AND ANR.
C. V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
