Dismissed

Shri Suryakant Pandurang Badve v. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2024WP/659/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for condonation of delay. The court held that the petitioner failed to explain the delay adequately, and no error or illegality existed in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits and no error or illegality was found in the impugned order.

Shri Suryakant Pandurang Badve Vs Shahu Corner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed byVARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2024.02.23 10:53:33 +0530

¶2

9-wp-659-2017.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2017

¶6

Shri Suryakant Pandurang Badve … Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha … Respondents Maryadit and Ors

¶9

Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 20^th FEBRUARY, 2024

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Heard.

¶14

This writ petition takes an exception to the order passed by

¶15

the Divisional Joint Registrar, rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner in filing Revision Application for challenging auction sale dated 26^th December 2012. The said application for condonation of delay is rejected on the ground that no satisfactory explanation is given for the delay of 3 and ½ years in filing Revision Application.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the

¶17

Page no. 1 of 3

¶18

9-wp-659-2017.doc

¶19

petitioner learnt about the auction sale on 26^th February 2013, he was unable to immediately file the Revision Application as he had filed objections before the Recovery Officer. He submitted that in the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has referred to proceedings that were initiated by the original Opponent No. 14 i.e. principal borrower with respect to the objections to the auction and writ petition was also filed before this Court. He therefore, submitted that after the said proceedings were over, the petitioner had filed the Civil Suit and after disposal of the Civil Suit, the Revision Application was filed. He therefore submitted that the delay in filing the Revision Application was explained in the delay condonation application and hence, the Revisional Authority ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner for hearing the Revision Application on merit.

¶20

I have perused the proceedings in respect of auction sale. It is not in dispute that the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner was rejected on 27^th October 2015, wherein the petitioner had raised an objections to the auction sale. After dismissal of the said suit on 22^nd October 2015, the Revision Application came to be filed on 21^st September 2016. Perusal of the delay condonation application does not refer to the date of rejection of the said suit. The application also

¶21

Page no. 2 of 3

¶22

9-wp-659-2017.doc

¶23

does not explain the delay from the date of rejection of the suit till filing of the Revision Application which is almost after a year. The Revisional Authority has considered the submissions of the petitioner and has dealt with all the contentions in detail by referring to various proceedings and dates of disposal of the same.

¶24

Perusal of the application for condonation of delay does not indicate that the petitioner has explained the long delay of 3 and ½ years in filing the Revision Application.

¶25

I do not find any error and/or illegality in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. There is no reason seen to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is devoid of any merits. Petition is dismissed.

¶26

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶27

Page no. 3 of 3

Shri Suryakant Pandurang Badve v. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Suryakant Pandurang Badve v. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit 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

Vasantdada Patil Pratisthan Trust Mumbai and Ors. Vs Nandkumar M Katkar and Anr.

Nisar Ismail Waghoo Vs Mazgaon Kokani Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Shraddha Shahoo Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Op Soc and Ors.

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Vs Sau. Kamal Dattatrya Javir and Anr.

Rajesh Kashinath Gupta and Anr. Vs Kashinath Rajaram Gupta and Ors.

Tukaram Sakharam Utekar and Ors. Vs Keshav Sakharam Utekar and Ors.