Bombay High Court
Shri Ashok S/O Govinda Meshram vs Shri Ramanna S/O Matuji Nilamwar ... on 22 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp3133.2013.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3133/2013
PETITIONER : Shri Ashok S/o Govinda Meshram,
Aged about 60 years,
Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Jangal Naka, Junora Road,
Gamnurwar Chowk, Babupeth,
Chandrapur
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS : 1] Shri Ramanna S/o Matuji Nilamwar,
Aged about 74 years,
Occu. Cultivation,
R/o Pombhurna, Tah. Pombhurna,
Distt. Chandrapur
2] State of Maharashtra,
Through it's Collector,
Chandrapur
3] The Tahsildar,
Pombhurna, Tah. Pombhurna,
Distt. Chandrapur
===================================
Shri R.G. Vaidya, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Miss M. Naik, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
===================================
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:18 :::
Judgment 2 wp3133.2013.odt
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 22 nd JANUARY, 2018
C.A.O. No. 402/2017 AND M.C.A (St.) No. 26080/2016
Heard Shri R.G. Vaidya, Advocate for the petitioner and
Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 and
Miss M. Naik, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Accepting the explanation given in the civil application
and miscellaneous civil application, delay of 4 years and 121 days
in filing miscellaneous civil application is condoned and for the
same reason, the order passed by this Court on 24/07/2013
dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution, is recalled.
The civil application and the miscellaneous civil
application are allowed accordingly.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3133/2013
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
As the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned
advocate for the respondent no. 1 and the learned AGP for the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 have shown willingness to argue the
matter on merits, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:18 :::
Judgment 3 wp3133.2013.odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The respondent no. 1 had filed the civil suit praying for
decree for possession which was decreed by the trial Court by the
judgment dated 04/10/2008. The judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court was challenged by the present petitioner before the
District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 150/2008. The appeal
was admitted and interim order was granted in favour of the
present petitioner. The present petitioner was required to deposit
the paperbook charges which were not deposited within time and
therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. Later on, the present
petitioner filed an application before the District Court for
restoration of the appeal and as there was delay of about eleven
months in filing the application, the petitioner had filed the
application praying for condonation of delay. By the impugned
order, the learned District Judge has dismissed this application
recording that the explanation given by the present petitioner is
not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of eleven months.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, has filed this writ
petition.
::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:46:18 :::
Judgment 4 wp3133.2013.odt
3] The facts recorded in the impugned order show that the
appeal was at the stage of depositing the paperbook charges.
According to the petitioner, the paperbook charges could not be
deposited as the appeal was transferred to the Court of Ad-hoc
District Judge-1 and then it was transferred to the Court of Extra
Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and thereafter again, it was transferred to
the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and because of the transfer
of appeal on three occasions within one and a half year, the
advocate for the petitioner lost track of the appeal and it came to
be dismissed for not depositing the paperbook charges.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is a tribal and is not aware about the niceties of
the proceedings before Court of law.
4] Be that as it may, considering the facts of the case, in
my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice:-
O R D E R
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
Judgment 5 wp3133.2013.odt
(ii) The application filed by the petitioner
before the District Court praying for condonation of
delay in filing the application for restoration of the
appeal is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
(iii) The learned District Judge-1, Chandrapur
shall consider the application filed by the petitioner
praying for restoration of the appeal and pass
appropriate orders, according to law.
(iv) The petitioner and the respondents shall
appear before the learned District Judge-1, Chandrapur
on 06/03/2018 at 11:00 a.m. and abide by further
orders/instructions in the matter.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
