Smt. Sarojini Krishnarao Naidu vs Sau. Sunanda Wasudeorao Wankhede ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 105 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                wp2571.15.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 2571 OF 2015


 Smt. Sarojini Krishnarao Naidu,
 Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Household,
 R/o. Ukva, Tahsil : Baihar, District:Balaghat
 (Madhya Pradesh)
                                                                       ....  PETITIONER.

                                    //  VERSUS //

 1. Sou. Sunanda Wasudeorao Wankhede,
    Aged about an Adult, Occupation : 
    Household. 

 2. Pramod Sadashivrao Padole,
    Aged about an Adult, Occupation: Service,

 3. Sau. Sadhana W/o. Diliprao Thakre,
    Aged about an Adult, Occupation : 
    Household, R/o. Military, Gwalior
    (Madhya Pradesh)

 4. Sudhir Wasudeorao Wankhede,
    Aged about an Adult, Occupation :
    Service, 

 5. Sau. Archana W/o.Bhaiyyasaheb Kohale,
    Resident of Delwadi, Post : Antora, 
    Tahsil : Ashti, District : Wardha. 

 6. Ku. Kalpana D/o. Wasudeorao Wankhede,
    Aged about an Adult, Occupation :
    Household,
    Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 Residents of Vitthalpur, 
    Tahsil & District : Amravati.  
                                                         .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                       .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri C.A.Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri S.S.Alaspurkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.  
 ___________________________________________________________________



::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018                           ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 01:11:23 :::
  Judgment                                            2                                wp2571.15.odt




                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JANUARY 05, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, refusing to condone delay of 363 days in

filing the application for restoration of revision application which was

dismissed in default. The explanation given for delay is that the advocate

who represented the petitioner earlier had undergone surgery and continued

to suffer further ailment, because of which he could not attend the matter

which resulted in dismissal of the revision application in default and that

there was some miscommunication between earlier advocate of the petitioner

and the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner is not accepted

by the Tribunal as the petitioner has not placed any documentary evidence

on record to support her contention.

4. Be that as it may, considering the claim of the petitioner that

the proceedings were earlier regularly attended by the advocate engaged by

her, in my view, the Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view.

Judgment 3 wp2571.15.odt

5. Hence, the following order:

i) The impugned order is set aside.

ii) The delay of 363 days in filing the application for restoration of the revision application, is condoned.

iii) The Tribunal is directed to proceed further in the matter according to law.

iv) The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall appear before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 16 th March, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. and abide by further instructions in the matter.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

The petitioner shall pay Rs.Ten Thousand to the respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 (Rs. Five Thousand to each of the respondent) towards costs

and produce receipt of it on record of the Tribunal till the date of

appearance.

JUDGE

RRaut..