Dismissed

Pramod Rajaram Kulkarni through Poa Holder v. Sopan Bajirao Bhargude (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2023WP/6255/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Tribunal order dismissing an application for condonation of delay. The court dismissed the petition as the challenge was barred by a 42-year delay. Even if the impugned order were set aside, the underlying order lacked fault, rendering the petition without merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pramod Rajaram Kulkarni through Poa Holder Vs Sopan Bajirao Bhargude (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

18wp6255-18

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6255 OF 2018

¶5

Pramod Rajaram Kulkarni through POA Holder .. Petitioner Versus Sopan Bajirao Bhargude (since deceased) Through LRs. and Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. S.G. Karandikar for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : MARCH 16, 2023

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY ASARAM ASARAM MANDAWGAD MANDAWGAD Date: 2023.03.17 16:53:59 +0530

¶11

By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No.TNC/REV/NS/V/3/2014, dismissing the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 330 days caused in filing the revision application.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was sufficient

¶13

2 / 2 18wp6255-18

¶14

explanation tendered as regards the delay of 330 days caused in preferring revision application which was not rightly considered.

¶15

Perused the papers with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶16

The Revision Application in question was preferred against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application filed challenging the order passed on 05.07.1969 in context of Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the application on the ground that the challenge to the order dated 05.07.1969 is preferred after a lapse of 42 years for which no sufficient explanation is tendered by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate any cause much less sufficient cause for preferring the application after delay of 42 years. As such, in my view, even if, a lenient view is taken and the petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be faulted with and as such, there is no merit in the petition.

¶17

In light of the above, petition fails and accordingly dismissed.

¶18

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶19

sa_mandwgad

Pramod Rajaram Kulkarni through Poa Holder v. Sopan Bajirao Bhargude (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pramod Rajaram Kulkarni through Poa Holder v. Sopan Bajirao Bhargude (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad a'Nagar Vs Popat Vishwanath Temak

Godawari Dudhana Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs a R Wadekar and Ors.

Popat Vishwantha Temak Vs the Chief Ex. Officer, Z P Ahmednagar

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs M/S. Hi Media Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Messrs. Kukreja Construction Company and Ors. Vs Luv Kush Apartments Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Ors.

Shri. Tejpal Mangaldas Shah (Since Decd.) through His Lrs. Vs Assistant Registrar Co-Op. Societies and Anr.