Bombay High Court
Vasant Manohar Chere vs Laxman Manohar Chere on 23 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 CRA-53-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2020
Vasant s/o Manohar Chere ...Applicant
Versus
Laxman s/o Manohar Chere and Ors. ...Respondents
.......
Mr. Jayant R. Patil, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. Dr. R.R.Deshpande, Advocate holding for
Mrs. Priyanka R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents No.
1, 2 and 7
.......
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : 16-02-2021.
ORDER :
01. The challenge in this revision application is to
the Order dated 23.1.2020 passed by District Judge-1,
Ahmedpur allowing the application for condonation of delay
in preferring the appeal against decree.
02. The applicant herein is the original respondent
in the M.C.A. (12/2019) before the learned District Judge.
The respondents No. 1 and 2 had preferred the application,
12/2019 seeking condonation of delay occurred in
preferring appeal against Judgment and decree passed in a
suit R.C.S. No. 307/2015.
2 CRA-53-20
03. The learned District Judge on hearing the
parties to the application condoned the delay subject to
cost of Rs.5,000/-. The said Order is under challenge in
this application.
04. Mr. J.R.Patil, the learned counsel for the
applicant would submit that the impugned order does not
contain reasons for condonation of delay. Although each
and everyday's delay need not be explained meticulously, a
case has to be madeout for condonation of delay. He,
therefore, urged for setting aside the impugned order.
Mr. R.R.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
contesting respondents would, on the other hand, submit
that the parties to the application are relatives of each
other. These respondents even could not appear in the
suit in time. There were talks of compromising the
matter. Even the terms of compromise were inked. The
application for condonation of delay contained the
reasons. The learned District Judge considered the same
and allowed the application.
05. The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land
3 CRA-53-20
Acquisition Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and
others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, has observed thus:
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to
condone delay by enacting S.5 of the Indian
Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the
Courts to do substantial justice to parties by
disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression
"sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is
adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply
the law in a meaningful manner which subserves
the ends of justice that being the life-purpose
for the existence of the institution of Courts.
It is common knowledge that this Court has been
making a justifiably liberal approach in matters
instituted in this Court. But the message does
not appear to have percolated down to all the
other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal
approach is adopted on principle as it is
realized that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to
benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
meritorious matter being thrown out at the
very threshold and cause of justice being
defeated. As against this when delay is
condoned the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits after
hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained"
does not mean that a pedantic approach
should be made. Why not every hour's delay,
every second's delay? The doctrine must be
applied in a rational common sense pragmatic
manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each
other, cause of substantial justice deserves
to be preferred for the other side cannot
claim to have vested right in injustice
being done because of a non-deliberate
delay.
4 CRA-53-20
5. There is no presumption that delay is
occasioned deliberately, or on account of
culpable negligence, or on account of mala
fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit
by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a
serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is
respected not on account of its power to
legalize injustice on technical grounds but
because it is capable of removing injustice
and is expected to do so."
06. The learned District Judge has observed in
his order that there was no intentional delay in
preferring the appeal. The District Judge has
considered the reasons given in the application for
delay condonation. This Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction do not find the impugned
order to be illegal or materially irregular. Same,
therefore, does not deserve to be interfered with.
The application, therefore, fails. The same is
dismissed.
[R.G.AVACHAT]
JUDGE
Dahibhate/-
