Bombay High Court
M/S Narsimha Construction Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thro. ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5952 OF 2020
IN SAST/30469/2018
M/S NARSIMHA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THRO.
MANAGING DIRECTOR- MOHAN KASHINATHRAO KALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO. COLLECTOR,BEED
AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Singh J.N. ;
Mr. BV Virdhe, AGP for Respondent No.1-State;
Respondent Nos. 1-a to 1-C are served.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 26th August, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Present application has been filed for getting delay of
379 days condoned in filing the Second Appeal.
2. Present applicant is original plaintiff, who had filed
Special Civil Suit No.28 of 2005 before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Beed for recovery of amount. The said suit came to be
partly decreed on 1.7.2006. The present respondents original
defendants filed RCA No.107/2012 (Old First Appeal No.
645/2007). That appeal came to be allowed by learned District
Judge-5, Beed on 21.6.2017,thereby dismissing the suit. Hence,
the plaintiff intends to file the Second Appeal, however, as
aforesaid, there is delay of 379 days.
3. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-
company.
4. The main contention of the applicant is, though the
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 06:06:46 :::
(2)
learned first Appellate Court had pronounced the judgment on
21.6.2017, the fact was not informed by the Advocate, who was
representing the applicant before the first Appellate Court. It is
also contended that the applicant company had given a letter to
the concerned Advocate on 14.9.2018, regarding not informing it
about the judgment and it was also stated that the letter
contained the statement that the Company would initiate legal
proceedings against the Advocate. It is also stated in that letter
itself that the Company to ask the said Advocate to compensate
the losses suffered by the company on account of non-intimation
about the judgment of the first Appellate Court and also stated
that the company would initiate the proceedings regarding
misconduct against the Advocate.
5. When enquiry has been made with the learned
Advocate appearing for the applicant - company as to whether
any proceedings for misconduct have been taken up against the
concerned Advocate or not, he says that he has not taken
instruction. This attitude is absolutely not proper. When
submissions are made then the position as on today, should be
within the knowledge of the learned Advocate. He cannot claim
ignorance now.
6. The applicant company has taken up a defence that it
was not aware about the decision and has come with a case that
in the 2nd week of September, 2018, when the Managing Director
of the Company instructed to its staff about pendency of legal
proceedings, they found it on the internet that the appeal has
been dismissed. The applicant company is not stating that some
of its employees, especially, the Managing Director, was in
contact with the Advocate and also keeping track of the appeal,
as they could find out from the internet in September 2018 about
dismissal of the appeal. They could have found it out even earlier
::: Uploaded on - 27/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 06:06:46 :::
(3)
also. However, any way, taking into consideration the duration of
the delay, it deserves to be condoned. However, inconvenience
that would be caused to the State, deserves to be compensated
in terms of money. Hence, the following order, -
ORDER
i. The application stands allowed and
disposed of;
ii. The delay caused in filing the Second
Appeal stands condoned subject to deposit of costs of
Rs.10,000/- within a period of one month from today.
iii. After the amount is deposited, Registry to
verify and register the Second Appeal and cost
amount be credited to the Government.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
