Tulsabai Radhakisan Sable vs Suresh Sitaram Sable And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10452 Bom

                                        (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6432 OF 2021
                                  in
                           R.C.NO.1062/2018
                                  IN
                 CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.39669/2017
                                  IN
                   SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.39667/2017

 Tulsabai w/o Radhakisan Sable                           = APPLICANT
                                                       (Orig.Appellant)

          VERSUS

 1)       Suresh s/o Sitaram Sable
          and Ors.                                        = RESPONDENT/S
                            -----
 Mr.PM Gaikwad,Advocate for Applicant
                                       -----

                                 CORAM :      SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.

RESERVED ON : 27/07/2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 05/08/2021

PER COURT :-

1. Present application has been filed for

condoning delay of 606 days for setting aside order

of refusal of registration dated 11.7.2018 passed

by learned Registrar (Judicial).

2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant.

Since when the original order was passed, the

respondents were not even summoned, it is not

necessary that they should be called now before the

delay is condoned. It can be seen that the present

applicant had filed the Second Appeal, challenging

the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil

Suit No.110/2004 by learned Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Bhokardan, District Jalna, which was

confirmed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-3,

Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No.71/2012 on

24.8.2017. There were certain office objections

which were not removed by the present applicant

within the time prescribed by the learned Registrar

(Judicial) and, therefore, the registration was

refused. The applicant says that she is a widow

and could not come to know about the office

objections. She is now ready to remove those

office objections. Due to lockdown also she could

not in the meantime remove the office objections.

3. It is required to be mentioned that after

the proceedings are filed by the Advocate for the

applicant/appellant, those proceedings are checked/

verified by the Registry. If there are certain

short-falls, office objections are raised and

mainly they are to be complied with by the Advocate

representing such appellant. The parties would be

from remote area and, therefore, they may not be

even knowing what office objections are raised. In

fact, now computer generated system has come up and

even the office objections are informed to the

concerned Advocates on mobile. However, in this

case, it appears that the negligence of learned

Advocate for the applicant that he had not removed

those office objections and did not even

communicate about refusal of the registration to

his client. But, for his negligence, the applicant

shall not suffer and, therefore, the application

deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly

allowed, however, subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to

the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad, to be deposited today itself. The costs

of Rs.1,000/- is duly deposited on 27.7.2021.

4. The applicant to remove the office

objections within a period of four weeks from

today. In case of failure, it shall be treated

that the registration is refused.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE

BDV