Jatin Shantilal Shah vs Maharashtra Industrial ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1350 Bom

                                                                             36 WP 7396-21.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC



 BHARAT
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Digitally signed
 by BHARAT
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7396 OF 2021
 DASHARATH
 PANDIT
 Date: 2022.02.08
 17:53:48 +0530




                    Jatin Shantilal Shah                                  ....Petitioner
                          V/s
                    Maharashtra Industrial
                    Development Corporation                               .....Respondent
                    ---
                    Mr. R. D. Soni i/b Dharam & Co. for the Petitioner.
                    ----
                                       CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                         DATE:    FEBRUARY 08, 2022

                    P.C.:-

                    1]       On or about January 02, 2011, Shantilal Shah - Plaintiff No.1

initiated suit for declaration and injunction based on registered Lease

Deed dated June 12, 1995. Present Petitioner Jatin Shah was added

as Plaintiff No.2 to the said suit. Shantilal expired on May 8, 2014

and suit came to be dismissed on September 17, 2016 as neither the

Petitioner appeared before the Court nor his lawyer cooperated in

deciding the suit.

2] Petitioner/Plaintiff No.2 took out proceedings being Misc. Civil

Application for restoration of the suit and also application for

condonation of delay was taken out. Prayer for condonation of delay

36 WP 7396-21.doc

is rejected by the impugned reasoned order passed by the Court of

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vashi on August 3, 2021. As such, this

Petition.

3] Heard Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He sought

condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration on the

grounds (a) after death of Plaintiff No.1, Plaintiff No.2 remained

disturbed, (b) after May 8, 2014 i.e. after death of Plaintiff No.1,

Plaintiff No.2 attended proceedings twice and as such he has shown

his interest in pursuing the proceedings and (c ) Petitioner's right to

pursue the suit cannot be taken away by simpliciter claiming that

cause in support of condonation of delay is not demonstrated. While

drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of

B. Madhuri Goud vs. B. Damodar Reddy reported in (2012) SCC 693

and in the matter of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram

More and Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387, he would claim that

the Petitioner is entitled for order of condonation of delay.

4] This Court has noticed that Respondent came to be served as

could be verified from the Bailiff's Report. On 1/12/2021, this Court

36 WP 7396-21.doc

has recorded that copy of the petition be served through the Panel

Advocate. This Court also noticed that the Petitioner was also called

upon to give intimation to the Respondent that on the next date,

matter will be taken up for final disposal. Mr. Soni, Counsel for the

Petitioner informs that the Advocate who regularly appears for

Respondent-Corporation was duly served but none appears.

5] In the aforesaid backdrop, Chief Executive Officer of the

Respondent-Corporation is called upon to explain the aforesaid default

in showing response to the orders of this Court. Let the affidavit

explaining default be placed before the Court by 11/2/2022, failing

which, Court will be constrained to summon the said Officer

physically, apart from taking out contempt proceedings.

6] Counsel for the Petitioner assures that copy of this order shall be

served on the said authority.

7] Stand over to 11/2/2022.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )