Bombay High Court
Rajaram Mohan Londhe vs Tatkali Devi Deosthan ... on 13 September, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17/2019
2021.09.16
14:15:17
+0530
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.37226/2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1275/1995
Rajaram Mohan Londhe ..... Applicant /
Petitioner
Vs.
Tatkali Devi Deosthan Wahiwatdar
& Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P. B. Shah a/w. K. P. Shah a/w. Avinash B. Avhad for the
Applicant / Petitioner
Mr. S. B. Deshmukh I/b. Amol Gatne for Respondent No.1B,
1C, 1D1 and 1D2
CORAM: K.K.TATED, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
(In Chamber at 2.00 pm)
P.C.
1 Heard. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits
that all the Respondents are duly served and to that effect
they filed Affidavit of Service. Even the office note shows
the same.
2 By this application, the Applicant is seeking
condonation of 1 year 159 days delay in filing the Review
Petition to recall the order dated 20.07.2017 passed by this
court in the Writ Petition No.1275/1995. The learned
Basavraj G. Patil 1/6
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
counsel for the Applicant submits that after passing order
dated 20.07.2017 by this court in the Writ Petition, they had
immediately preferred Special Leave Petition
No.29784/2017 in the apex court. He submits that the apex
court dismissed the SLP on 23.10.2018. He submits that
immediately after dismissal of the SLP, they filed the
present Review Petition on 19.12.2018. He submits that in
the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
condone the delay in filing the Review Petition and the
Review Petition be heard on merits. If delay is not condoned
irreparable loss will be caused.
3 On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1B, 1C, 1D1 and 1D/2 has vehemently opposed the
present Civil Application. They filed their Affidavit in Reply
dated 11.09.2021.
4 The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that
bare reading of the application shows that the Applicant has
failed and neglected to show sufficient cause for condonation
of more than 1 year and 159 days delay in filing the Writ
Petition. He submits that the reasons given by the Applicant
is only in paragraph 3 of the application which reads thus:
"3. The Petitioner states that recently, after going
through the impugned order, the petitioner realized
that certain facts and circumstances of the present
case and the relevant provisions of law and the
Judgements referred to and relied upon were neither
considered nor discussed nor there is any finding of
this Hon'ble Court on the said facts and
circumstances. Thus under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the above
Basavraj G. Patil 2/6
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
Review Petition, however, there is delay in filing of the
above review petition which is neither intentional nor
deliberate and the same is caused due to unavoidable
circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.
The applicant says that the applicant has a very good
case on merits and in confident to succeed in the
above review petition and hence in the interest of
justice, the delay caused in filing the above review
petition deserves to be condoned and the review
petition be decided on merits. The applicant submits
that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if
the delay is condoned, however, the applicant will
suffer great irreparable injustice if the delay is not
condoned. Hence the present Civil Application."
5 The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
bare reading of paragraph 3 of the application shows that
the Applicant has failed and neglected to disclose sufficient
cause. He submits that even this court, in the matter of
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Dattu Mahadeo Markad &
Anr. 2009(4) Mh.L.J.373 held that, if the Applicant fails to
disclose sufficient cause, there is no question of condonation
of delay. In support of this contention, the learned counsel
for the Respondent relies on paragraph 5 of the said
judgment which reads thus:
"5. In view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that the Applicant
failed to explain the sufficient cause for preferring
present Civil Application after 1336 days from last
date to prefer appeal in this Honourable High Court.
In view of this fact, there is no substance in the
present Civil Application and Civil Application is
dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-. Applicants are
directed to deposit the cost of R.1000/- in each matter
in this Court within six weeks from today. The said
cost be recovered from the officer, who is responsible
for delay in preferring the present appeal.
Basavraj G. Patil 3/6
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
Respondents - original claimants are at liberty to
withdraw the said cost.
In view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstance, the present Civil Application is
dismissed. The Applicant is entitled for authenticated
copy of this order."
6 On the basis of these facts, the learned counsel for the
Respondents submits that there is no substance in the
present Civil Application and same is liable to be dismissed
with costs.
7 It is to be noted that in the present proceedings
against the order dated 20.07.2017 in Writ Petition
No.1275/1995, the Applicant had preferred SLP before the
apex court which was dismissed on 23.10.2018. Thereafter,
the Applicant filed the present Review Petition on
19.12.2018. It is to be noted that for condonation of delay,
there is no question of considering the merits of the matter.
8 The Civil Application shows that immediately after
dismissal of the SLP by the apex court, the Review Petition
has been filed. The authority cited by the Respondent in
Dattu Mahadeo Markad (supra) is not applicable in the
present case. In that case, there was delay of 1336 days in
filing the First Appeal. In any case, whether the Review
Petition is maintainable or not, has to be decided at the time
of admission and final hearing.
9 The Apex Court in the matter of N.Balkrishnan Vs.
M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that the object
Basavraj G. Patil 4/6
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
of fixing the time limit is not meant to destroy the rights.
The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy
for the general welfare. Paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the
said judgment read thus :
11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do
not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy
promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to
repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury.
Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal
remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered.
Time is precious and the wasted time would never
revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would
sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal
remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must
be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of
limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is
enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit
finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period
be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant
to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to
see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but
seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every
legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively
fixed period of time.
12. A Court knows that refusal to condone delay would
result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his
cause. There is no presumption that delay in
approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court
has held that the words "sufficient cause" Under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, 1969 SC 575
and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator,
Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749.
13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay
there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant
Basavraj G. Patil 5/6
ch-4.17.19-cao.odt
concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his
plea and to shut the door against him. If the
explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not
put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must
show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when
there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was
occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then
the court should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning delay the Court should
not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be
borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have
incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be
a salutary guideline that when courts condone the
delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the
court shall compensate the opposite party for his
loss."
10 In view of the above mentioned facts and the law laid
down by the apex court, I am satisfied that the Applicant
has made out a case for allowing the Civil Application.
11 Hence, the following order is passed:
a. Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
b. The Civil Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
c. No order as to costs.
d. The Review Petitioner to remove all Office
objections in Review Petition within 4 weeks from
today, failing which the Review Petition shall stand
dismissed without further reference to the court.
(K.K.TATED, J.)
Basavraj G. Patil 6/6
