Anusaya Asaram Dongre vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5838 Bom

                                         1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.7471 OF 2017

Anusaya w/o Asaram Dongre,
Age-65 years, Occu-Househol/Agriculturist,
R/o Bhandgaon, Tq. Parner,
Dist.Ahmednagar                                          -- PETITIONER 

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Ahmednagar..                                             -- RESPONDENT 

Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for the respondent/State.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 10/08/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13/02/2015 by

which the L.A.R. No.235/2011 was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of

the Code of Civil Procedure as the petitioner has failed to deposit the

court fees and implement the directions of the Court.

3. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

khs/AUGUST 2017/7471-d

Advocates for the petitioner and the learned AGP, I find that though

the petitioner has instituted the land reference case in 2004, it was

for the first time on 08/08/2011 that the said proceedings were

registered and the petitioner was directed to deposit the court fees. A

last chance was granted on 21/11/2012 by extending the period by

15 days. Yet, the petitioner did not deposit the court fees. Finally, by

the impugned order dated 13/02/2015, the said proceedings were

rejected.

4. Section 148 of the CPC permits enlargement of time by the

Court whose directions have not been complied with by the plaintiff.

Any direction given by the Court, by which a litigating side is to

perform an act within a stipulated period, Section 148 would permit

enlargement of time.

5. This Court, in the matter of Rajaram Dhanu Warade Vs The

State of Maharashtra and another, WP No.6595/2012, has observed

in its order dated 31/10/2012 that the court fees can be

subsequently deposited. The proceedings u/s 18 were therefore

restored. Similar are the orders passed by this Court on 13/10/2011

in WP No.7979/2011, order dated 08/03/2001 in Civil Revision

Application No.180/2010 and the order dated 09/01/2017 passed by

khs/AUGUST 2017/7471-d

this Court in WP Nos.4654/2016, 4657/2016 and 4658/2016. In all

these orders, this Court has permitted the depositing of court fees

and the restoration of the LAR proceedings.

6. Considering the above and keeping in view that the doors of

litigation would be permanently closed on the petitioner if the

impugned order is not set aside, I find that this petition can be

allowed.

7. Learned AGP submits that no litigant should be permitted to

take advantage of its own law. From September 2011 till August

2017, the petitioner failed to deposit the court fees. His claim in the

LAR proceeding would include a claim for interest on the enhanced

amount. Granting interest for the period of delay would amount to

rewarding the petitioner.

8. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order dated 13/02/2015 is quashed and set aside and LAR

No.235/2011 is restored to the Court which has passed the

impugned order. The litigating sides are agreeable to appear before

the Trial Court on 01/09/2017. Request is accepted.

khs/AUGUST 2017/7471-d

9. Needless to state, on the date of appearance before the Court,

the petitioner shall enter an affidavit and shall mention that he shall

not be entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation amount for

the period of September 2011 to August 2017 and shall not make

such a claim before any authority. Any such claim shall stand

rejected.

10. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/AUGUST 2017/7471-d