Dr. Ashok Rajmal Mehta vs M/S. Shree Tirthankar Co. And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 7805 Bom

 Rng                                       1                                                     
                                                                                           cwp2825.17


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 APPELLATE  CIVIL JURISDICTION

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2825 OF 2017

 Dr.Ashok Rajmal Mehta                    }
 Aged 78 years, Occupation: Doctor
 Heir and legal representative of Smt.
 Tarabai Rajmal Mehta, deceased           }
 presently residing at     5th Floor,
 Poonil Apartments, 1th Road, JVPD
 Scheme, 9, Ashok Nagar Society           }
 Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400 049.   ..                     Petitioner  
                                                   (Orig.Defendant)
               versus

 M/s Shree Tirthankar Co                   }
 a firm having their office at 
 Gogtewadi, Aarey Road,                    }
 Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400 063.                  .. Respondent

} (Orig.Plaintiff)

Ms.Shivani Shah with Ms.Ekta Pandav I/b M/s Jhangiani Narula &Associates for Petitioner Mr.Sameer Bhalekar for Respondent

CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J

DATE: 5th OCTOBER 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms.Shivani Shah for the Petitioner and

Mr.Sameer Bhalekar for Respondent.

2. Rule.

cwp2825.17

3. With consent and at the request of learned counsel

for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned

order dated 1.12.2016 by which the Appellate Bench of the

Small Causes Court has refused to condone the delay in

institution of a Revision against the Judgment and decree dated

4.1.2016 which directed eviction of the Petitioner. In this case,

the delay in insititution of the Revision was of 54 days.

However, the Appeal Bench has come to the conclusion that no

sufficient cause was shown and further cause which was shown

was false and reason stated was also false.

5. The Petitioner in the Application seeking

condonation of delay had stated that the matter was entrusted

to one Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani for the purpose of

institution of a Revision. However, there was delay on the part

of Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani and therefore, the Revision

could not be instituted within the prescribed period of

limitaiton.

cwp2825.17

6. The Appeal Court has held that the material on

record indicates that Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani had nothing

to do with the matter and who was entrusted the matter, was

Mr.Thakkar. The Appeal Court has held that since a false case

was set out, there was no reason to condone the delay.

7. Ms.Shivani Shah learned counsel for the Petitioner

points out that Mr.Mukesh Sangani was engaged to instruct

Mr.Thakkar and it is in this context that reference was made to

Mr.Mukesh Sangani. She points out that there was no intention

to make any false statement or to suppress the facts. She points

out that the Petitioner has really gained nothing by mis-stating

or attempting to mis-state any fact. She submits that this is a fit

case for condonation of delay and at the highest, by imposition

of some reasonable costs.

8. Mr.Sameer Bhalekar learned counsel for the

Respondent submits that in such matters the quantum of delay

is not relevant but, the cause shown is relevant. Since a false

ground was raised, the Appeal Court was justified in declining

cwp2825.17

the condonation. He submits that decree in the present case was

made on 4.1.2016 and till date the decree has not been

executed for reasons attributable to the Petitioner. Valuable

time has been spent and severe prejudice will result to the

Respondent if delay is condoned and Appeal is restored for

hearing on merits.

9. In N.BALAKRISHNAN VS M.KRISHNAMURTHY

reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 the Supreme

Court has held that condonation of delay is a matter of

discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not

say that such discretion can be exercised only if delay is within

a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the

explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the

shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of

acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a

very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is

satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as

sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and

normally the superior court should not disturb such finding,

cwp2825.17

much less in revisional jurisdiction,unless the exercise of

discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or

perverse. But, it is a different matter when the first court refuses

to condone the delay, In such cases, the superior court would be

free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open

to such superior court to come to its own finding even

untrammelleld by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The Supreme Court proceeds to observe that the

reason for such a different stance is that the primary function of

the court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to

advance substantial justice.

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the

rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort

to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

11. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would

result in foreclosing a suitor from putting his cause. There is no

cwp2825.17

presumption that delay in approaching the court is always

deliberate. The expression "suffiicient cause" should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must

be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some

lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not

sufficient to turn down his plea and to shut the door against

him. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the

opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a

loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation

expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts

condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the

court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.

12. Having considered the rival contentions and

perusing the material on record, delay can be condoned subject

to payment of exemplary costs. An Applicant seeking

condonation of delay has to state the true and factual

particulars. The fact that the delay was only of 54 days, does

not dispense with the requirement stating the true and correct

cwp2825.17

facts. If indeed Advocate Mr.Mukesh Sangani was engaged to

only instuct Mr.Thakkar who was actually entrusted with the

matter, this fact should have been reflected in the Application

seeking condonation of delay. Nevertheless, this is a fit case

where the explanation now submitted by Ms.Shivani Shah can

be accepted. This is because, the explanation is a plausible

explanation. Besides, it cannot be said that the Applicant has

gained substantially by omitting reference to Mr.Thakkar.

13. Upon taking into consideration all these

circumstances, delay can be condoned. However, the

Respondent will have to be suitably compensated because for

no fault of the Respondent it is the Respondent who shall suffer

real prejudice. The Respondent has not only been deprived of

possession of the suit premises but, further there is bound to be

delay if the Appeal is to be heard on merits. Almost two years

have passed since the Respondent has obtained the eviction

decree. The prejudice is therefore required to be compensated

by costs. For all this, the Petitioner, as condition precedent for

condonation of delay, is liable to pay costs quantified at

cwp2825.17

Rs.1,00,000/-.

14. This Petition is therefore, disposed of with the

following order :

O R D E R

(a) The impugned order dated 1.12.2016 made by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court declining to condone the delay is set aside. The delay in institution of the Revision is hereby condoned ;

(b) The aforesaid shall be subject to the Petitioner depositing before the Appeal Bench costs of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from today ;

(c) In case the amount of costs are not deposited within a period of two weeks from today, this Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court ;

(d) Upon deposit of costs, the Respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the same unconditionally ;

(e) For a period of six weeks from today, execution of the impugned decree is stayed ;

cwp2825.17

(f) The Petitioner after deposit of amount of costs, may apply to the Appeal Court for interim reliefs in the meanwhlle ;

(g) The Appeal Court to consider the application for interim relief on its own merits without being influenced by the interim order granted by this Court. If the Appeal Bench comes to the conclusion that any case is made out for grant of interim relief, there is no doubt that the Appeal Bench will impose suitable condition upon the Petitioner in the light of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ATMA RAM PROPERTIES VS FEDERAL MOTORS PVT.LTD reported in (2005) 1 SCC

page 705 and STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & anr VS SUPER MAX INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD reported in 2009 (5) ALL MR page 1001.

(h) Further, it is made clear that in case the amount of costs are not deposited within a period of two weeks, this interim protection now granted will stand vacated without further reference to this Court.

15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

cwp2825.17

All concerned to act on the basis of an

authenticated copy of this order.

(M.S.SONAK, J)