Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Pramila Tukaram Sonawane And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4324 Bom

                                   1/3                  10 CAF 32-21.doc


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2021
                                 IN
                    REJECTED CASE NO.156 OF 2018


Maharashtra State Road Transport              .. Applicant.
Corporation
                         Versus
Smt.Pramila Tukaram Sonawane and              .. Respondents
ors
                           ...

Ms.Sonali Pawar i/b Yashodeep P. Deshmukh for the applicant
Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade for the respondents.

                            CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 25th APRIL, 2022 P.C:-

1 On a notice being issue, the respondents are represented through learned counsel Shri Pritesh Bohade.

2 By the present application, the appellant seek restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed on account of the dismissal of the Civil Application No.398/2017 seeking condonation of delay on failure to remove the office objection.

3 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent.

Tilak





                                    2/3                     10 CAF 32-21.doc




5                 On 8/11/2017, the Registrar Judicial-II passed a

conditional order directing the office objection to be removed on listing of the Civil Application. Since there was no compliance, the Civil Application was dismissed.

6 In bringing the Application, there is a delay of 235 days and on hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, and on perusal of the application, and specifically paragraph no.3, it offer an explanation as well as the factum of non-removal of the office objection.

7 It is specifically stated that on the Appeal being filed, the stay application was granted by order dated 8/11/2017, subject to the deposit of the entire amount of compensation which was accordingly deposited. The counsel for the applicant submit that there is a good case on merits and even the Appeal is now ready for final hearing. Since the amount is already deposited, in the wake of the dismissal of the Appeal, the order for stay also stood vacated and the respondent claimants are desirous of proceeding with the execution, which would make the Appeal infructuous.

In the wake of above, Civil Application No.32/2001 is allowed by setting aside the dismissal of the Civil Application. Necessarily, Civil Application is restored and shall be heard on merits, for condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal.

Tilak





                                  3/3                  10 CAF 32-21.doc

During the pendency of the proceedings, since the amount is already deposited in the Court, there shall be stay to the effect and operation of the impugned judgment.

The appellant is directed to file private paper book within a period of eight weeks from today and make a request for expeditious hearing of the Appeal.

The claimants are also at liberty to take out an application for withdrawal of the amount.

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Tilak