Smt. Guljar Bano Patel vs Jayraj Devidas And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11248 Bom

                                                                      10 wp 12164-19.doc




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 12164 OF 2019

                      Smt. Guljar Bano Patel                    ..Petitioner
                            V/s.
                      Jayraj Devidas and Ors.                   ..Respondents
                                                     ----
                      Mr. Kailas Dewal i/b Mr. Jayesh Joshi for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Prathamesh Gaikwad for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 7, 10 &
SNEHA
NITIN
                      13.
CHAVAN                Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent/State.
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
                                                     ----
Date: 2022.10.21
16:14:08 +0530                               CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

                                                  DATE   : 21 OCTOBER 2022

                      :ORAL JUDGMENT:

                      .       Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for
                      the contesting Respondent waives service.       Heard finally by
                      consent of parties.


                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to the order dated
                      07.04.2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT)
                      in Misc. Application No. 7 of 2014. By the impugned order the
                      learned MRT has rejected the Misc. Application No. 7 of 2014
                      thereby refusing to recall the order dated 30.01.2014 by which
                      revision application bearing No. TNC/REV/281/B/2010 has
                      been dismissed in default.


                           Sneha Chavan                                            page 1 of 4
                                                    10 wp 12164-19.doc


3.      I have heard learned counsel for the parties.


4.      The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is a lady aged 85 years and was unable to personally
look after the matter. It is submitted that son-in-law of the
Petitioner namely Anjum Patel was looking after the litigation.
He points out that on account of the fact that the Petitioner could
not produce the documents as noticed in the order, the revision
application came to be dismissed in default, which ought to have
been restored.


5.      The learned counsel for the contesting Respondents has
opposed the petition stating that repeated chances were granted
to the Petitioner to produce the documents. It is submitted that
even so far as filing of the present petition is concerned, there is a
delay of over three years as the order dated 30.01.2014 is sought
to be challenged in 2019.


6.      In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated
that Anjum Patel was arrested on 05.02.2016 for an offence
punishable under Section 326, 323, 324, 114 read with Section
34 of IPC registered with Kashimira Police Station and was
released on bail on 28.06.2019. He, therefore, submits that no
steps could be taken for filing the petition. He submits that
documents as referred to in the order dated 07.04.2016 are now
ready and can be produced.

     Sneha Chavan                                               page 2 of 4
                                                            10 wp 12164-19.doc




7.      I have considered the submissions made. Normally, this
court would incline in favour of the disposal of the petition on
merits rather than on technicality. It is true that as per the record
there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner to produce the
documents, as a result of which, the revision application came to
be dismissed in default by a common order passed on 30.01.2014.
So far as the delay in filing of the petition is concerned, the
Petitioner claims that Petitioner being a aged lady, the litigation
was looked after by her son-in-law, who was arrested and was in
custody. In my considered view, the petitioner has therefore,
made out a case for restoration of the revision application subject
to condition of payment of costs.


8.      In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:
                                     ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.04.2016 as well as order dated 30.01.2014 to the extent of dismissal of the revision application TNC/REV/281/B/2010 are hereby set aside.

(iii) Revision Application No. 281/B/2010 is restored to the file of the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the contesting Respondents or depositing the same before the learned MRT for payment to the contesting Respondents.

     Sneha Chavan                                                       page 3 of 4
                                                 10 wp 12164-19.doc

(iv) The costs shall be deposited within the period of four weeks from today. The Parties to appear before the learned MRT on 02.12.2022.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

    Sneha Chavan                                             page 4 of 4