Application filed to condone delay in filing a Chamber Appeal seeking restoration of a suit application. Court perused record and considered bona fides. Delay condoned subject to cost and immediate removal of objections.
M.A. allowed subject to cost of Rs.5000/-; directed to remove objections and appeal put up for hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| 08.07.2025 | Exh. | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.80 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Vivek Phadke and Mr Tejas Girap, Advocates for the Applicants. Ms Manshi Thakker and Mr Rishabh Shah (through VC) i/b M/s. Raval Shah & Co., Advocates for Respondent. |
|||
| 7 | Vakalatnama (exhibit-7) filed by Ld. Advocate for the Respondent. Heard on M.A. No.80 of 2025. |
||
| The Applicants has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the Chamber Application (D) No.1077 of 2025 seeking restoration of Application under Section 17 being S.A. (D) No.19 of 2024. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants filed S.A. (D) No.19 of 2024 to challenge the notice dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Tahasildar, Vasai, Dist. Palghar, to take the physical possession of the subject property. However, when the Applicants could not remove/comply with the objections raised on time after filing of S.A., the S.A. was dismissed as declined to register on 24.03.2025. Ld. Advocate states that the Applicants had almost removed all the objections in the abovesaid S.A. and had also circulated the S.A. before this Tribunal for seeking interim relief. But in the meantime, the Advocate on record advised |
Page 1 of 3
| the Applicants to approach the Respondent No.1 |
|---|
| Bank for amicable settlement to which the |
| Applicants approached the Respondent No.1 |
| Bank to settle as a result of which the Applicants could not follow up with the S.A. and the S.A. got dismissed for non-removal of office |
| objections. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants |
| further submits that though the talks for the settlements were going on they received notice dated 21.05.2025 for taking physical possession of |
| the residential flat on 09.07.2025. Thereafter, on |
| 24.06.2025, the Applicants received information about the dismissal of the S.A. for non-removal of office objections and therefore, filed Chamber Appeal (D) No.1077 of 2025 seeking restoration of |
| the S.A. However, office objection was raised |
| regarding the delay of 65 days in filing the |
| Chamber Appeal and hence, prays that the delay of 65 days may be condoned as the delay was not deliberate and was due to settlement discussions |
| going on and Respondent No.1 not taking any steps regarding settlement. |
| Ld. Advocate for the Respondent opposed stating that no acceptable reason is shown for the delay caused. So, the M.A. should be rejected. |
| Heard both sides. Perused the Record. |
| The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. |
| Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since |
| Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024 observed that |
| while consideringan application to condone |
Page 2 of 3
| nrb - 07 | delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Hence, this Tribunal will not decide on the merits of the matter but will rather consider the bonafide shown in the explanation. In the above facts and circumstances, M.A. No.80 of 2025 is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable to DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals. The Applicant is directed to approach the Registry to remove the objections in Chamber Appeal (D) No.1077 of 2025 today itself. The Chamber Appeal be put up for hearing on 09.07.2025 subject to compliance. File of this M.A. be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
|---|
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 65 days in filing the Chamber Appeal for restoration of Section 17 application can be condoned.
Whether the explanation regarding settlement discussions constitutes a bona fide reason for the delay.
Whether the Chamber Appeal should be restored and heard after condonation of delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRsReferred¶4
H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024
Applicants
Respondent No.1
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
