Bombay High Court
Yashwant Ananda Patil And Others vs Rajanibai Prakash Attarde And ... on 28 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 913 wp 5444.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5444 OF 2016
1. Yashwant Ananda Patil
Age 53 yrs, Occ. Agri.
R/o Nehru nagar, Mohadi Road,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Kishor Ramkrishna Mahajan,
Age 67 yrs, Occ. Agri.
R/o Sadoba nagar, Near Hira Pipe
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Girish Ramkrishna Mahajan
Age 57 yrs, Occ. Agri.
R/o 30, Ramanand Nagar,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Rajanibai Prakash Attarde
Age 58 yrs, Occ. Agri. & Business
R/o A/p nanded, Tq. Dharangaon,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Sau. Rajani Baliram Chaudhari
Age 65yrs, Occ. Agri. & Business
R/o Vitthal Peth, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Smt. Shashikakala Hiralal Chaudhari
Age 55 yrs, Occ. Agri. & Business
4. Pushkaraj Hari Chaudhari
Age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri. & Business
Both R/o Chaudhari Wada,
Old Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
----
Mr. Pramod R. Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for respondents.
----
mub
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:27:13 :::
2 913 wp 5444.16.odt
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28-06-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners, aggrieved by impugned order dated 22-
04-2016 of condonation delay of 104 days are before this court.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. P.R. Dhorde
vehemently urges this court to indulge into his request and
interfere with and unsettle the impugned order and to refuse the
condonation of delay. He submits that no material worth the name
had been placed on record to show that the reasons given for
condonation of delay were really subsisting. He submits that neither
the name of the advocate concerned nor any correspondence to the
respondents has been referred to. He further submits that the
property is a valuable property and has been sold at a very low rate
to the appellants who are respondents in this petition.
4. He submits that the suit is decreed. The property is
valuable and the litigation is getting stretched in the matter where
the merits are in favour of the petitioners. He, therefore, requests
this court that the reasons which are given being specious and the
order depicts that the matter has been cursorly considered and
mub
3 913 wp 5444.16.odt
delay has been condoned.
5. In order to support his submission he cites a judgment
of Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Victor Albuquerque V/s.
Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd & others reported in 1998(2)
MLJ 437. It appears that said reported case concerns a delay of
182 in filing appeal on the pretext that settlement talks were going
on. From the record it emerged that the settlements talk which had
taken place were far beyond the period of limitation and as such the
court considered that the reason given for condonation of delay has
been bald and not capable of being construed sufficient cause. In
the circumstances, thus it appears that it is in the peculiar facts of
the case the court declined to condone delay.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Girish Nagori,
however, submits that while the appellate court had considered the
relevant aspect involved in the matter. The facet that the
petitioners themselves had in fact filed caveat in the High Court. It
has been the case of the respondents that the matter had been
placed into the hands of an advocate at Aurangabad for filing
appeal in High Court who had returned the same finding that the
appeal would lie to the District Court and not the High Court and
that was around January, 2016.
mub
4 913 wp 5444.16.odt
7. He further submits that the aforesaid would indicate
that there is indeed sufficient cause which has been given for
condonation of delay. It is in these circumstances, the delay has
been caused and has been explained accordingly. He further
contends by causing delay the respondent-appellants were hardly
going to gain any benefit. In fact it would put in jeopardy the
meritorious rights they possess in respect of suit property. He
submits that when the appellate court has in its discretion allowed
the application of condonation of delay, the High Courts normally
are very slow in interfering with such discretion.
8. Perusal of the impugned order shows, it has been
considered that the plaintiff-petitioners themselves in fact lodged a
caveat in the High Court along with the one in the District Court.
The veracity of the contentions on behalf of the respondent-
appellants that the matter was handed over for appeal in High
Court gets some credence in the circumstances. Whereas the
contentions on behalf of the petitioners, could not be supported by
any convincing material. Perusal of order shows relevant
considerations have been addressed to and the court has found that
reasons given show sufficient cause. Delay caused does not appear
to be deliberate or intentional. The appellants-respondent were
concerned with the suit property and have, therefore, approached
the appellate court giving reasonable explanation for condonation of
mub
5 913 wp 5444.16.odt
delay, the court imposed certain costs on the respondent-
appellants. No fault can be found with it.
9. The request on behalf of the petitioners to enhance cost
may be given its due as such the costs stand enhanced from
Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Learned counsel Mr. Girish Nagori,
communicates that Rs.1,000/- awarded as costs by the appellate
court have been deposited. As such the respondent-appellants shall
deposit a further sum of Rs.4,000/- in the appellate court for its
onward disbursement to the petitioners. The cost be deposited
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
10. As such writ petition is not being entertained and is
being dismissed. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. Rule
discharged.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
mub
