Pandurang Gangadhar Medewar vs Parbhani City Municipal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2450 Bom

                                         1                   WP-1690.16.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                         
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1690 OF 2016




                                                 
     Pandurang s/o Gangadhar Medewar
     Age: 71 years Occ: Pensioner




                                                
     R/at: Shivram Nagar
     Parbhani, Tal. & Dist. Parbhani              ... PETITIONER

              Versus




                                       
     Parbhani City Municipal Corporation
     Parbhani, through its   
     Municipal Commissioner                       ... RESPONDENT
                            
                                   .....
     Mr. V. R. Bhumkar, Advocate for petitioner
     Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for respondent
                                   .....
      
   



                                   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 6th MAY, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. Petition has been moved against an order refusing to

condone delay of about 12 days in filing application for

2 WP-1690.16.doc

restoration of suit, which had been dismissed in default on

13th January, 2015.

3. Petitioner contends that the reasons which have over-

whelmed learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani

while passing order dated 23rd October, 2015 on Exhibit-1 in

Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2015 refusing to

condone the delay, are rather incompatible with the general

approach in delay condonation matters. According to him, it

has emerged on record that the facts have not been disputed.

Learned judge has considered the matter too technically,

when, in fact, the application ought to have been approached

openly with a view to further the cause of justice for which

litigation had been initiated.

4. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that overall position emerges that the matter has not been

diligently handled by the petitioner and conduct of petitioner

exhibits casual approach in the matter. Learned judge, under

the circumstances, had been constrained to pass the order.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows, although the

petitioner contends to have got knowledge about dismissal

order of January, 2015 immediately, had applied for certified

3 WP-1690.16.doc

copies of the order, which were received and for quite a few

days he was lying indisposed in February, 2015. According to

him, it consumed quite some time. In the process delay of

twelve days occurred in filing application for restoration of suit

dismissed in default. These contentions and/or averments in

the present matter have gone uncontroverted. In the

circumstances, instead of looking at the matter parochially

under which application ig came to be dismissed under

impugned order, a little liberal approach may meet out the

situation suitably.

6. The situation can be salvaged by putting certain

condition on the petitioner to condone the delay of 12 days

which in the circumstances appears to have been reasonably

explained. However, inconvenience caused in the process may

be taken case of by imposing some cost on the petitioner.

7. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (C) subject to condition that the petitioner shall

deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in the trial court within a period

of eight weeks, payable to the respondent. Rule is made

absolute accordingly.

4 WP-1690.16.doc

8. Having regard to the subject matter involved, it would

be expedient that the suit would be proceeded with

expeditiously.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of.

                              ig           ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
                            
     sms