Bombay High Court
Devidas S/O Pandurang Lahore ... vs Smt. Gangubai W/O S. Kulkarni ... on 16 November, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp1817.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1817 of 2014
1. Devidas s/o Pandurang Lahore,
Aged about 63 years,
through his Power of Attorney,
namely, Pravin Devidas Lahore,
R/o Akoli Jahgir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
2. Purushottam s/o Pandurang Lahore
(dead), through his legal heir
Amol Purushottam Lahore,
Aged 60 years,
R/o Akoli Jahagir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
3. Dashrath s/o Pandurang Lahore,
Aged about 64 years.
4. Smt. Sindhu w/o Ramdas Lahore,
Aged about 60 years.
Nos.1 to 4 are the resident of Akoli
Jahagir, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
5. Smt. Kamal Digambar Dhoble,
Aged 65 years,
R/o Mhaisapur,
Tq. and Dist. Akola.
6. Smt. Vimal Wamanrao Khotale,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o Dewale,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
7. Haridini Dnyaneshwar Tivhane,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o Palsod, Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
8. Smt. Saraswatibai wd/o Pandurang Lahore,
Aged 60 years,
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2016 00:41:51 :::
2
wp1817.14.odt
R/o Akoli Jahangir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola. ... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Gangubai w/o Shridhar Kulkarni
(deceased), through his legal heirs :
1. Padmanam Govindrao Dharmadhikari,
Aged Major, R/o Akoli Jahgir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
2. Ramesh wAsudeorao Dharmadhikari,
Aged Major, R/o Akoli Jahgir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.
3. Shashikant Wasudeorao Dharmadhikari,
Aged Major, R/o Akoli Jahgir,
Tq. Akot and Dist. Akola.
4. Umakant Wasudeo Dharmadhikari
(deceased), through his legal heir :
4-i. Sanjay S/o Umakant Dharmadhikari,
Aged Major,
R/o Akoli Jahgir,
Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola. ... Respondents
Shri Vipul Bhise, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Sameer Sohoni, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 16 November, 2016
th
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
wp1817.14.odt
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 25-2-2014 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in
Revision No.175/TEN-B/2000, rejecting the application for
condonation of delay of 2 years and 8 months caused in filing an
application for bringing the names of legal representatives of the
original non-applicant Smt. Gangubai Shridhar Kulkarni on record.
The order also rejects the application for condonation of
delay of 98 days caused in filing an application for bringing the
name of the legal representative Umakant, one of the legal
representatives of Smt. Gangubai.
3. The petitioners have preferred Revision
No.175/TEN-B/2000 under Section 111 of the Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 against the order
dated 16-10-1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, in
Appeal No.TNC-107/Kapsi/10/1998-99 pertaining to field Survey
No.21/2 of Mouza Kapsi. The revision was preferred on 10-4-2000
and the sole non-applicant was Smt. Gangubai. Upon coming to
know of the death of Smt. Gangubai, an application for bringing
her legal representatives on record was filed on 16-12-2002.
Smt. Gangubai expired on 20-1-2000, i.e. even before the revision
was filed, and the application for bringing the legal representatives
of Smt. Gangubai was not accompanied by an application for
wp1817.14.odt
condonation of delay caused in filing such application. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not functioning during the
period from 2002 to 2010. Upon receipt of the notice after
resumption of the proceedings by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal on 5-3-2010, an application was filed for condonation of
delay of 2 years and 8 months caused in filing an application for
bringing the legal representatives of Smt. Gangubai on record.
Pending the decision of the revision, Umakant, one of the legal
heirs of Smt. Gangubai, also expired on 5-3-2009 and, therefore, an
application was filed for condonation of delay of 98 days in
bringing his legal representatives on record on 10-6-2013. The said
application has been rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal.
4. Smt. Gangubai, the sole non-applicant, died even before
the revision was filed on 10-4-2000. Hence, the question of filing
an application for bringing her legal representatives on record
along with the application for condonation of delay, does not arise.
What the applicants were required to do was to file an application
under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining
the legal representatives of Smt. Gangubai as party non-applicants
in the revision application filed under Section 111 of the Code as
soon as the applicants came to know of the death of
wp1817.14.odt
Smt. Gangubai. Though the application was styled as an
application for bringing the legal representatives of Smt. Gangubai
on record, it can be treated as an application under Order I,
Rule 10 of the Code for joining the legal representatives of Smt.
Gangubai as the party non-applicants in Revision
No.175/TEN-B/2000. Such application was filed on 16-12-2002 as
soon as the applicants came to know of the death of
Smt. Gangubai. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ought to have,
therefore, allowed the said application.
5. So far as the legal representatives of Umakant are
concerned, there was a delay of 98 days caused in filing an
application for bringing his legal representatives on record. After
going through the averments made in the application, I am satisfied
that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 98 days by
imposing the costs, as I do not find lack of bona fides on the part of
the applicants.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order
dated 25-2-2014 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur, in Revision No.175/TEN-B/2000, is hereby quashed and
set aside. The petitioners are permitted to join the legal
representatives of Smt. Gangubai as party non-applicants in the
wp1817.14.odt
said revision and also to bring on record the legal representatives
of Umakant. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period
of two weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties before
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The parties to appear before
the Tribunal on 19-12-2016.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs. ig JUDGE.
Lanjewar, PS
