Bombay High Court
Shri. Nana Laxman Gavali vs Motiram Hari Jadhav (Since ... on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Bharati Dangre
Digitally signed by
JAYARAJAN JAYARAJAN
ANJAKULATH ANJAKULATH NAIR
NAIR Date: 2022.03.16
11:25:35 +0530
1/3 04 CAO-132.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2019
IN
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.2523 OF 2019
Nana Laxman Gavali ] ... Applicant
Vs.
Motiram Hari Jadhav (since ] ... Respondents
deceased), through His LRs & Ors.
...
Mr. Dhananjayrao D. Rananaware for the appellant.
...
CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 14TH MARCH, 2022.
P.C. :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2019
1. By the present civil application, delay of 203 days in
preferring the review petition against the order dated 05/06/2018
in Second Appeal No.102 of 2015 is sought to be condoned.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
application. The reasons for delay are sought to be justified on the
AJN
2/3 04 CAO-132.19.odt
ground that the applicant is an illiterate person and a tribal,
residing in a remote village and he was under the impression that
the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
was not aware of its summary dismissal. In paragraph No.10 of
the application, the applicant has narrated the steps taken by him
to collect the documents, which were required to be called from
the concerned advocate in Delhi.
3. Considering the reasons cited in the application, I am
satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly,
Civil Application No.132 of 2019 is allowed.
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.2523 OF 2019
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned judgment and order dated 05/06/2018 in Second Appeal
No.102 of 2015.
5. The suit came to be filed by the petitioner seeking specific
performance, which was partly allowed by the trial court and
though his claim for specific performance came to be rejected as it
was barred by limitation and the knowledge was attributed to the
petitioner in the year 1980 itself, his possession came to be
protected by the said order. The impugned judgment specifically
records that the suit for specific performance was barred by
limitation, since the petitioner himself has admitted in cross-
AJN
3/3 04 CAO-132.19.odt
examination that in the year 1980 itself, he got the knowledge that
the respondent has refused to execute the sale deed. On this
ground, particularly when the possession of the petitioner was
protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the
learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that no substantial question
of law is involved in this case. This conclusion was coupled with
a finding being recorded that if the land is being transferred to a
tribal to a non-tribal, the restriction imposed under Section 32 of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code will come into play. Thus,
the second appeal came to dismissed by the order dated
05/06/2018.
6. Against this order, a special leave petition came to be filed
before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was also dismissed on
27/08/2018. In the wake of the above, when the second appeal
was not entertained since it did not involve any substantial
question of law and in the wake of the findings rendered that the
suit for specific performance was, rightly, barred by law of
limitation and the suit being not filed within the limitation, the suit
was dismissed and the second appeal also came to be dismissed.
With the order being upheld, by refusing to entertain the special
leave petition by the Apex Court, the review petition does not
deserve any consideration and is dismissed as such.
[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
AJN
