Allowed

Kantadevi W/O.Vijaykumar Thole v. Khanderao Rambhau Gaikwad and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2022CAF/3579/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two Civil Applications seeking condonation of delay for filing restoration applications. The delay, totaling over eight years, was attributed to the oversight of the applicants' Advocate's Clerk. The court allowed the applications subject to payment of costs to the respondents. If costs are not paid within four weeks, the applications shall be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Applications allowed subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 costs to respondents no. 1, 2, and 4 within four weeks.

Kantadevi W/O.Vijaykumar Thole Vs Khanderao… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1/6

¶2

CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3579 OF 2019 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) ALONGWITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4365 OF 2016 (FOR RESTORATION)

¶8

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 197 OF 2008

¶10

IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2019 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32159 OF 2004

¶11

SMT. KANTADEVI W/O. VIJAYKUMAR THOLE } APPLICANTS (ORIG. APPELLANT)

¶12

V/S.

¶13

SHRI. KHANDERAO RAMBHAU GAIKWAD AND ORS. } RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr. R.V. Govilkar a/w. Mr. Mihir Govilkar a/w. Ms. Shaba N. Khan, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

¶15

Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶16

Ms. Prabha Badadare i/by. Mr. H.G. Misar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶17

Smt. Urmila K. Sanil, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶18

2/6

¶19

CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶20

Rane

¶21

ALONGWITH

¶22

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2611 OF 2019 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)

¶23

¶24

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4411 OF 2016 (FOR RESTORATION)

¶25

IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2021 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 32155 OF 2004

¶26

ARCHANA VIJAYKUMAR THOLE @ MRS. ARCHANA R. JAIN

¶27

} APPLICANT

¶28

(ORIG. APPELLANT)

¶29

V/S. SHRI. KHANDERAO RAMBHAU GAIKWAD & ORS. } RESPONDENTS

¶30

¶31

Mr. R.V. Govilkar a/w. Mr. Mihir Govilkar a/w. Ms. Shaba N. Khan, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

¶32

Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶33

Ms. Preeti Phanse i/by. Mr. Amol Gatne, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶34

Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

¶35

Closed for orders on : 10^th February, 2022.

¶36

Pronounced order on : 15^th February, 2022.

¶37

3/6 CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶38

Rane

¶39

P.C. : 1) Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Nashik by judgment and order dated 11^th February, 2002 dismissed Claim Petitions No. 393/1994 against all respondents; whereas dismissed Claim Petition No. 392/1994 against respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Khanderao Rambhau Gaikwad and United India Assurance Company Limited. Smt. Kantadevi Thole, claimant in M.A.C.P. No. 393/1994 preferred First Appeal (St.) No.32159/2004 alongwith Civil Application No.2019/2005, seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal. 2) Smt. Archana Vijaykumar Thole, claimant in M.A.C.P. No.392/1994 preferred First Appeal (St.) No.32155 of 2004 alongwith Civil Application No.2021/2005 seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal.

¶40

On 28^th February, 2008 Civil Application No. 2019 of 2005 fled by Smt. Kantadevi Thole, for condonation of delay was dismissed in default. Likewise, Civil Application No. 2021 of 2005 fled by Archana Thole seeking condonation of delay came to be dismissed in view

¶41

of the self-operative order dated 20^th September, 2007.

¶42

4/6

¶43

CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶44

Rane

¶45

Smt. Kantadevi Thole and Smt. Archana

¶46

Thole fled Civil Applications No.4411/2016 and 4365/2016 for restoration of their delay condonation applications, and

¶47

for condonation of 8 years 22 days, delay, caused in preferring the restoration applications.

¶48

Applicant- Smt. Kantadevi Thole and Smt. Archana Thole attributed negligence to Advocate’s Clerk, because of which applications were dismissed. Attributions of negligence have been averred in paragraphs no. 8, 10 and 12 of the applications.

¶49

Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Learned Advocate was appearing for the applicants.

¶50

Both the applications when came up for consideration before Justice Dr. Smt. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi on 4^th February 2019, Court was of the opinion that, the applicants ought to have preferred two separate Civil Applications; one seeking restoration and another for condonation of delay. Therefore, Smt. Kantadevi Thole fled Civil Application No. 3579/2019 seeking condonation of delay; whereas Smt. Archana Thole fled Civil Application

¶51

5/6

¶52

CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶53

Rane

¶54

No. 2611/2019 seeking condonation of delay. Thus, four applications are placed before me for consideration.

¶55

Heard Mr. R.V. Govilkar, learned Counsel for the applicants in both the appeals and Counsel for the respondents therein.

¶56

Mr. Govilkar, has taken me through the averments of the applications, to contend that the mistake committed by his Clerk was through oversight and it was neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore although

¶57

the delay was of eight years plus, the appellants cannot be made to suffer for the mistake and/or carelessness of Advocate’s Clerk. Mr. Govilkar, therefore submitted that in the interest of justice, the orders dismissing the Civil Applications No.2019/2005 and Civil Application No.2021/2005 in respective First Appeals be restored to fle.

¶58

Here, it is certain that due to oversight of Advocate’s Clerk, Civil Applications in both the First Appeals were dismissed. Therefore, on that count alone, applicant’s statutory right of Appeal, cannot be defeated. At the same moment, respondents-original defendants

¶59

6/6

¶60

CA-3579&2611-2019(Adv.R.V. Govilkar).odt 15/2/2022

¶61

Rane

¶62

cannot be endured to defend the proceedings, nearly after twenty two years, which were culminated in their favour without awarding cost to them. Thus, taking overview of the matter, the delay occurred in moving the restoration application can be condoned subject to costs of Rs.20,000/(Rs. Twenty Thousand) payable to respondents no.1, 2 and 4, each, in Civil Application No.2611/2019 and respondents no.1, 2 and 4 in Civil Application No. 3579/2019 within four weeks from today. Thus, subject to payment of cost, Civil Applications No. 3579/2019, Civil Application No. 4365/2016 in First Appeal (St.) No.32159/2004 AND Civil Application No. 2611/2019 and Civil Application No.4411/2016 in First Appeal (St.) No.32155/2004 are allowed.

¶63

It is clarifed that, if the costs are not paid as directed, the applications shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶64

Subject to above, the applications are allowed and disposed of.

¶65

(Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)

¶66

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2022.02.15 16:35:33 +0530

Kantadevi W/O.Vijaykumar Thole v. Khanderao Rambhau Gaikwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantadevi W/O.Vijaykumar Thole v. Khanderao Rambhau Gaikwad and Ors.

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

Mahadev Bhagoji Nagurdekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Yamunabai Haribhau Tamhane and Anr.

M/S. Hasmukhrai and Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Shrikant Dnyandeo Ghule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kum. Archana Vijaykumar Thole @ Mrs.Archana R.Jain Vs Shri. Khanderao Rambhau Gaikwad and Ors.

Mukesh Shankar Purav (Since Deceased) Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay