Bombay High Court
Pradeep S/O Jaikumar Meshram And ... vs Dhanwan S/O Naru Dahat And Others on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 75wp1488.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2022
Pradeed Jaikumar Meshram and ors_ Vs. ___Dhanwan Naru Dahat and ors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.K.Borkar, Advocate for petitioner
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/10/2022
1] Heard Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Though the respondents are served, none
appears.
2] The petition challenges the order dated
21.8.2021, whereby the application for grant of
permission to deposit the amount of cost of ₹.2,000/- in
the Court as was directed by the order dated 13.6.2018
(pg 30) has been rejected on the ground that the delay
has not been sufficiently explained.
3] In a suit for specific performance, the Trial
Court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated
17.4.1985. In appeal bearing RCA No. 57/1986, the
learned Appellate Court granted a decree on 2.1.1991 for
specific performance, Second Appeal against which came
to be dismissed on 6.8.2002. The decree as passed by the
Appellate Court was put to execution in RD No. 35/2003.
During the pendency of the second appeal, the original
(2) 75wp1488.22
Decree Holder Heeraman Tukaram Meshram had passed
away and the execution proceedings were filed by his
L.Rs., Kesharbai - the widow, JaiKumar and Sunilkumar -
the sons, and Smt. Aruna and Archanabai - the
daughters. The said execution proceedings came to be
dismissed in default on 9.10.2014. Misc. Judicial
Application No. 54/2016 was filed for condonation of
delay and for granting an opportunity to participate in
the proceedings, which came to be allowed on
13.6.2018, subject to the cost of ₹.2,000/- (pg.26), to be
paid within one month of the date of the order. Since the
same was not paid in time, an application for grant of
permission to deposit the amount was filed vide MJC No.
63/2020 on 10.7.2020, which has been dismissed by the
impugned order dated 21.8.2021 (pg.36), holding that
the delayt has not been properly explained.
4] Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since the proceedings were prosecuted by
Jailkumar and Sunilkumar, the sons of late Heeraman,
Jaikumar who was suffering from cancer passed away on
27.9.18 and so also Sunilkumar who was looking after
him also passed away on 8.9.2019, during the Covid-19
period, as a result of which the amount could not be
deposited. It is contended that this was the reasonable
explanation afforded for the delay.
(3) 75wp1488.22
5] The position about the demise of the
aforesaid persons i.e. sons of late Heeraman has not been
controverted and so also the position regarding Jaikumar
suffering from cancer is reflected from order dated
13.6.2018, which reason already was accepted by the
executing Court for allowing the MJC No. 54/2016 and
there does not appear to be any reason, considering the
demise of Sunilkumar on 8.9.2019 not to accept the
explanation given, considering which the impugned
order is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay is
condoned, subject to het condition of deposit of the
amount by 21.10.2022.
6] Petition is allowed in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:13.10.2022 18:13
