Allowed

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Smt. Rutuja Sudhir Chavan

Bombay HC9 Mar 2020CAF/1018/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed an application for condonation of an 89-day delay in filing a first appeal against a civil decree. The court found sufficient cause for the delay and directed the registration of the appeal, dismissing a connected application that did not require further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 89-day delay directed; First Appeal registered and admitted; Connected Civil Application No. 1019 of 2019 dismissed.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Smt… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/3 01-CAF 1018.19 (25).odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2019

¶3

¶4

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5204 OF 2019

¶5

ALONG WITH

¶6

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5204 OF 2019

¶7

AND

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1019 OF 2019

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

¶10

.. Applicants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

.. Rutuja Sudhir Chavan Respondent

¶13

Ms. Sheetal Mane for the Applicants.

¶14

Mr. P.J. Thorat for the Respondent.

¶15

CORAM: SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶16

DATED : 09TH MARCH, 2020.

¶17

P.C:-

¶18

The present Civil Application seeks condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the First Appeal challenging the Order dated

¶19

AJN

¶20

2/3 01-CAF 1018.19 (25).odt

¶21

24/09/2018 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court thereby decreeing the suit and restraining the Corporation from implementing the notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and perused the Application.

¶23

Paragraph No.4 of the Civil Application contains the reason in support of the condonation of delay and it is stated that the panel advocates of the Corporation being over-burdened with the court work and inadequacy of staff to initiate prompt proceedings are the reasons in condoning the delay. The bona fides are thus sought to be justified in paragraph No.4 and on consideration of the said reason, it appears to be a justiciable explanation for not approaching the court within the period of limitation.

¶24

The delay is of 89 days and as sufficient cause is shown to condone the same, the same is condoned. Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). First Appeal is directed to be registered and taken up for admission forthwith.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties on Admission of the Appeal.

¶26

AJN

¶27

3/3 01-CAF 1018.19 (25).odt

¶28

On considering the grounds raised in the Memo of Appeal, the First Appeal deserves consideration and, hence, Rule. Learned counsel waives notice for the sole Respondent.

¶29

Since the Appeal is admitted learned counsel for the Appellant does not press for hearing of the Civil Application No.1019 of 2019. The same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

¶31

AJN

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Smt. Rutuja Sudhir Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Smt. Rutuja Sudhir Chavan

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

Smt. Laxmibai Shivling Kokane and Ors. Vs Pralhad Mahadeo Chavan and Anr.

Gulam Mohammad Salim Khan and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Poonam Amit Lole Vs Amit Ashok Lole and Ors.

Pravin Yashwant Kate Vs Kiran Pravin Kate

Mr. Tahir Mohd.Hussain Vs Mr. Mohammed Zakir Hussein

Najmuddin Tajammul Shaikh Vs Naimuddin Tajammul Shaikh and Anr.