Sulabai Sukhdev Kandalkar and Ors. Vs Maruti Bajaba Kandalkar and Ors.

Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH RUSHIKESH VISHNU VISHNU PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.04.01 18:36:08 +0530

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1032 OF 2020

¶5

Sulabai Sukhdev Kandalkar and Ors.... Petitioners
 Versus
Maruti Bajaba Kandalkar and Ors....Respondents

¶6

*****

¶7

Mr. Rupesh A. Zade a/w Ms Priyanka Gupta, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶8

*****

¶9

CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH 2024

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. The petitioners herein are challenging the order dated 7^th October

¶12

2019 passed by the District Judge – 10, Pune, in Miscellaneous Civil
Application No. 426 of 2019. The petitioners have also sought further
directions that the petitioners may be allowed to pay the cost, as per the
order dated 11th September 2019 passed in the said application, and
their appeal may be directed to be registered as per rules.

¶13

2. The petitioners in the present Writ Petition are the Original

¶14

Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in Regular Civil Suit No. 165 of 2014 filed by the

1/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

respondents herein, before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ghodnadi
(Shirur). The said suit of the respondent (Original Plaintiffs) was filed
for declaration and perpetual injunction, and it was decreed by order
dated 22nd February 2019. The petitioners herein feeling aggrieved by
the issue of decree in favour of the respondents herein, challenged the
same by filing Regular Civil Appeal alongwith Misc. Civil Application
No. 426 of 2019 for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge
has allowed the Misc. Civil Application No. 426 of 2019 with a
condition to pay cost of Rs.500/- to each of the non-applicants, within
15 days from the date of order, vide order dated 11th September 2019.
On the payment of cost by the applicants, the appeal was directed to be
registered as per rules. There was a further condition that, on failure to
pay the cost by the applicants within time, the application will stand
dismissed automatically. Learned District Judge has passed a conditional
order while allowing the application filed by the present petitioners.

¶19

3.The application of the petitioners for condonation of delay was
allowed by imposing certain conditions. Though the petitioners were
granted 15 days time to deposit the cost, the petitioners could not

2/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

deposit the same within the time stipulated. It is the case of the
applicant/present petitioners, that the petitioners had approached the
concerned clerk of the court for the copy of the said order, but the file
could not be located by the concerned clerk. As a result, the petitioners
could not deposit the cost within the stipulated time, therefore, they
filed an application before the same court, seeking permission to deposit
the cost, after expiry of the time mentioned in the order dated 7th
October 2019. The petitioners in the said application prayed that, if the
application is not allowed, irreparable loss would be caused to the
petitioners. Therefore, permission of the concerned court was sought to
deposit the said amount. There was no say filed by the respondents to
the said application and the court proceeded to pass an order rejecting
the application. Learned Judge has observed that, since it was a self
serving order the application stood automatically dismissed, therefore,
the application is not maintainable and time for depositing the cost also
cannot be extended. In view of the same, the application has been
rejected by order dated 7th October 2019.

¶24

4.Though the respondents have not filed any say to the said
application (Exhibit– 16), however, in the present Petition the

3/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

respondents have strongly opposed the grant of prayer in the present
Petition. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the
concered court has become functus officio after the order has been
passed, granting the application for condonation of delay by order dated
11th September 2019. Therefore, the court has rightly passed the order
impugned and refrained from passing any order in favour of the
applicant. It is submitted that the District Judge has rightly passed the
order rejecting the application.

¶29

5.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. After hearing
the arguments and going through the Petition alongwith annextures, it is
evident that, the substantial rights of the present petitioners are at stake.
The decree is passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division,
Ghodnadi in favour of the respondents herein. The petitioners are
aggrieved by the order of declaration of ownership and possession over
the suit property in favour of the respondents. The petitioners have
filed the Regular Civil Appeal alongwith the Application for
condonation of delay. The delay is of meagre 9 days, therefore, the
application was allowed by the learned District Judge. Unfortunately,

4/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

the petitioners could not take timely steps for compliance of the
conditional order within stipulated period, as a result of which, their
substantial rights are at stake. It is not disputed that the application filed
by the petitioners was after the prescribed period of 15 days was over.
The petitioners have simply sought permission of the concerned court
for depositing the penalty imposed by the court with no other prayer. In
fact, the petitioners ought to filed an application with a prayer to recall
the said order, as the period mentioned in the order granting permission
to deposit the cost was already over. Considering that, if the order
passed by the learned District Judge – 10 (Exhibit- 16) in Misc. Civil
Application No. 426 of 2019 dated 7th October 2019 is not set aside, it
would cause irreparable loss to the petitioners and their Appeal would
not be registered.

¶34

6. The subject matter of the suit pertains to ownership and possession

¶35

of the suit property, it would be too harsh on the concerned party to be
left remediless, therefore, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside
the order passed by the District Judge – 10, Pune, dated 7th October
2019.

5/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

7. It is apparent that the petitioners herein had not made proper

¶40

prayers in the application, as a result, the impugned order came to be
passed by the learned District Judge. Because of the order impugned,
the petitioners have now approached this Court and the respondents
herein have also been unnecessarily dragged to this Court. Therefore, in
my opinion, it would be appropriate to grant cost of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondents herein.

¶41

8.The petitioners herein are at liberty to file an appropriate
application for recall of the order before the concerned court, and the
court may pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶42

9.In view of the aforementioned observations, the Writ Petition
stands allowed. The impugned order dated 7th October 2019 is quashed
and set aside. The petitioners herein are at liberty to file a fresh
application making appropriate prayers before the District and Sessions
Judge, Pune, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of
this order. The petitioners shall deposit the cost of Rs.10,000/- in the
District Court, Pune alongwith the fresh application, and the
respondents herein shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount of

6/7

R.V.Patil

3 WP.1032.2020.doc

cost. The said application to be decided by the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Pune, on its own merits.

¶47

10.With the above observations, Writ Petition stand disposed of.

¶48

 [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]

¶49

7/7

¶50

R.V.Patil

Sulabai Sukhdev Kandalkar and Ors. v. Maruti Bajaba Kandalkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulabai Sukhdev Kandalkar and Ors. v. Maruti Bajaba Kandalkar 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

Dinesh Bankelal Gaud Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Vijay Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Laxman Ghobale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapu Ningu Gadulkar and Ors. vs Sadhana Ramesh Gadulkar and Anr.

Abdul Rahman Imamuddin Ansari Vs Venezia Realtors and Anr.

Kalpataru Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Innovative Ideals and Services