Dismissed

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan v. Vishnupant Shamrao Modi

Bombay HC27 Jul 2018WP/8709/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial Judge's order restoring a civil suit file after condoning the original plaintiff's substantial delay. The High Court found the trial judge exercised discretion reasonably based on medical evidence and the father's advanced age, dismissing the writ under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dated 8709 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan Vs Vishnupant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

911-wp-8709-2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8709 OF 2017

¶4

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan Vs.

¶5

Vishnupant Shamrao Modi

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rushikesh Patil I/b Mr. Kedar Lad, for petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.

¶10

DATE : 27^th JULY, 2018.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Rushikesh Patil, for the petitioner.

¶13

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 03.02.2017 by which the learned trial Judge has restored R.C.S. No. 576 of 2011 upon recording satisfaction that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant-original plaintiff on the date when the matter was fixed for evidence i.e. on 05.11.2014.

¶14

3. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the delay in seeking for restoration was substantial whereas, the cause shown that condonation was not at all sufficient. He submits that learned trial Judge has not stated any good reasons for condonation of such delay and consequent restoration. On these grounds, Mr. Patil, submits that the impugned order warrants interference.

¶15

4. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the records, it cannot be said that the discretion excercised by the learned trial

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Shubham

¶18

911-wp-8709-2017.doc

¶19

Judge is unreasonable or indicative of any non application of mind. The applicant/plaintiff, in his application seeking condonation of delay as well as restoration had pointed that he is a senior citizen suffering from weakness and other ailments. Medical certificates have been produced on record from Lifeline Clinic at Rajarampuri. It appears that, the applicant's son was examined and thereafter cross-examined in the matter. Therefore, the learned trial Judge upon taking into consideration the advance stage of the applicant, the documents on record and the deposition of the applicants son has exercised discretion. In absence of any unreasonableness in the exercise of discretion, there is no case made out to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

5. In all such matters, some lapse is inevitable on the part of the applicant seeking condonation of delay. However, that by itself is not sufficient to non suit such applicants. There are no mala fides in the explanation submitted. The explanation, apart from being probable was even backed by oral and documentary evidence.

¶21

6. Upon cumulative consideration of the aforesaid, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

( M.S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

Shubham

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan v. Vishnupant Shamrao Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Mangala Anandrao Chavan v. Vishnupant Shamrao Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhas Balkrishna Samant Vs Ganpat Sakharam Shete and Ors.

Suhas Balkrishna Samant Vs Ganpat Sakharam Shete and Ors.

Bai Mamubai Trust and Ors. Vs Suchitra W/O. of Sadhu Koraga Shetty

Godumal Narayandas Kishnani Vs Shri. Premchand @ Prem Tejumal Chichrya @ Gurdasani, and Ors.

Smt. Sunita Sitaram Karande Patil and Anr. Vs Machchindra Rambhau Chaudhar

Mudhit Madanlal Gupta through His Ca Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.