Shri.Chittaranjan Chandrabhan ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14342 Bom

                                                      5. CAF 2839-17 in FAST 8957-17.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2839 OF 2017
                                       IN
                       FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 8957 OF 2017

 Chittaranjan Chandrabhan Sharma
 (Since died through his legal heirs)                            ... Appellants
             Vs.
 Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
 Development Authority                                           ...Respondent

Mr. Kevin Perera i/b Ms. Jaswandi Khatu, Advocate for the applicant/appellants.

None for the Respondent.

                               CORAM      :     ABHAY AHUJA, J
                               DATE       :     4TH OCTOBER 2021

 P. C.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Learned counsel submits that there has been a delay of 26 days

in preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 30th September

2016 in Civil Suit No. 899 of 2008, whereby the Bombay City Civil

Court has dismissed the applicant's suit.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention of the Court to

paragraph no. 3 of the application to explain the delay in filing of the

appeal.

Nikita Gadgil 1 of 3

5. CAF 2839-17 in FAST 8957-17.doc

4. A perusal of the said explanation indicates that there were

settlement talks between the applicants and the respondent and to put

an end to the dispute, the respondent had already taken possession of

two flats in the new building, which is constructed by the applicant. It

is observed from the said paragraph that initially the respondent had

shown willingness to settle the matter by handing over the flat to the

applicant, but the same has not been vacated nor the possession

thereof has been handed over.

5. It is submitted that there has been a delay of 26 days in filing the

appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention of this Court

to the page no. 72 of the appeal, which is the letter dated 2 nd July 2004

by the respondent to the applicant, where it is recorded that instead of

compensation, applicant is willing to accept TDR for land.

6. From the record it is observed that respondents have been served

with copy of this application on 9th July 2019. There is an affidavit of

service to that effect. Copy thereof has been tendered across the bar by

the counsel for the applicant.

7. It is observed that despite the service, none appeared for the

respondent when the matter is called out today nor any affidavit in

reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

Nikita Gadgil 2 of 3

5. CAF 2839-17 in FAST 8957-17.doc

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having

perused paragraph no. 3 of the application, this Court is of the view

that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 26 days in

preferring the first appeal. Delay of 26 days is accordingly condoned.

9. Civil Application stands disposed.

10. List the first appeal for admission on 11th October 2021.

                                                         ( ABHAY AHUJA, J. )




 Nikita Gadgil                                                             3 of 3