Partly allowed

Rakesh Umkant Wani v. Pravin Rajmal Kabre and Another

Bombay HC11 Jul 2018WP/982/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a delay of two years and eleven months in filing an application for restoration of a suit due to absence was not inordinate. The impugned order rejecting the application was quashed, delay condoned, and costs awarded with a donation to a medical institution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12-11-2014 set aside; Misc. Application No.375/2011 allowed; delay condoned; costs granted and donation of Rs.5,000 to Government Medical College and Hospital made.

Rakesh Umkant Wani Vs Pravin Rajmal Kabre and Another — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2015

¶4

Rakesh s/o Umakant Wani, Age-32 years, Occu-Agril. and Service, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Pimprala, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon

¶5

-- PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Pravin s/o Rajmal Kabre, Age-47 years, Occu-Business,

¶8

Varsha w/o Pravin Kabre, Age-40 years, Occu-Household, Both R/o 20, M.I.G. Colony, Opp.Nehru Stadium, Harda, Tq. and Dist. Harda (M.P.) -- RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Sangmitra Wadmare. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

¶11

DATE : 11/07/2018

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

¶14

consent of the parties.

¶15

On 10/02/2015, while issuing notice to the respondents, I had

¶16

passed the following order :-

¶17

“1. Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable

khs/JULY 2018/982-d

on 24-03-2015.

The petitioner was the plaintiff in R.C.S. No.206 of 2003. His lawyer filed no instruction purshis on 17-03-2008. The Trial Court issued fresh notice dated 14-07-2008 which is said to have been served on the real uncle of the petitioner on 15-07-2008 who resides along with the petitioner in the same town where the Court is situated. Contention is that the real uncle did not appraise the petitioner of the pending proceedings. The suit was dismissed in default on 15-11-2008.

¶22

The petitioner filed an application for restoration along with an application for condonation of delay on 11-10-2011 which is practically after three years of the DID order. C.M.A. No.375 of 2011 was rejected by the impugned order dated 12-11-2014. Since delay was not condoned, the restoration application was not heard.

¶23

In the light of the above, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) on or before the 13^th day of March 2015, pending admission hearing of this petition.”

¶24

The petitioner has therefore deposited Rs.20,000/- in this Court on 20/02/2015 and the interim protection was continued.

¶25

Learned Advocate for the respondents strenuously submits

¶26

khs/JULY 2018/982-d

¶27

¶28

that the learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff had withdrawn his vakalatnama on 17/03/2018 in Spl.Civil Suit.No.206/2003. Thereafter, the Trial Court issued a fresh notice on 14/07/2008. Said Service was served upon the uncle (plaintiff's father's brother) and therefore the service was complete. Yet the plaintiff did not appear and therefore the Trial Court dismissed the suit in default on 15/11/2008. It was only on 11/10/2011 that the plaintiff appeared by filing MA No.375/2011 praying for condonation of delay alongwith an application for restoration of the suit. Considering the pleadings in the application and the conduct of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 12/11/2014. The delay is of 2 years and 11 months and therefore the same cannot be condoned.

¶29

I find that the law on condonation of delay has been crystalized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Matter of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and Esha Bhattacharjee Vs.Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others [2013(12) SCC 649]. If oblique or ulterior motives or laches are not attributable to the conduct of the applicant and if the applicant would suffer an irreparable harm by refusing to condone the delay, the Court has to

¶30

khs/JULY 2018/982-d

¶31

¶32

take a pragmatic view rather than adopting a pedantic approach.

¶33

The suit property is an immovable property. The counter suit RCS No.33/2003, filed by the defendants with regard to the same suit property, has also been dismissed. The delay of 2 years and 11 months may appear to be a bit large, but would not amount to an inordinate delay which cannot be condoned. The petitioner does not appear to have caused the delay deliberately since he would in fact jeopardize his own case by unnecessarily and deliberately causing a delay.

¶34

Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 12/11/2014 is quashed and set aside. Misc.Appl.No.375/2011 is allowed and the delay of 2 years and 11 months is condoned.

¶35

At this juncture, learned Advocate for the respondents/ defendants submits that a substantial portion of the costs be granted to the defendants and a small portion of the costs be donated to a public cause for the treatment of patients, who are below poverty line. As such, both the respondents are permitted to withdraw Rs.7,500/- each (Rs.Seven thousand five hundred only) from this

¶36

khs/JULY 2018/982-d

¶37

¶38

Court as costs. The remaining Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only), alongwith accrued interest, shall be transferred to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, through Medical Officer, High Court Dispensary, Aurangabad, either in cash or by Demand Draft (Demand Draft be drawn in the name of “ Dean, Government

¶39

Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad CSR Fund”).

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view as regards the application for restoration which will now be registered by the Trial Court and would be decided on its own merits.

¶41

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶42

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

¶43

khs/JULY 2018/982-d

Rakesh Umkant Wani v. Pravin Rajmal Kabre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Umkant Wani v. Pravin Rajmal Kabre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Acting President Jawahar Educaition Society, Beed and Another Vs Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and Others

Mangal Sanjay Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd Ismail Shaikh Badruddin and Others Vs Shaikh Badruddin Shaikh Chand

Jitendra Sahebrao Jadhav Vs Shaikh Burkhabee Shaikh Isaq through Her Power of Attorney Holder Shaikh Gani Shakh Isaq

Ashok Harkchand Sanghavi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Meraj Basheer Vs Fatma Zakaria and Other