Bombay High Court
Mr. Sachin Subhash Pakale vs Mr. Ramchandra Ganu Nirmal And Ors on 5 February, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
2024:BHC-AS:6923
55.9048.19 wp.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9048 OF 2019
Mr. Sachin Subhash Pakale .....Petitioner
Vs.
Mr. Ramchandra Ganu Nirmal and ors .....Respondents
Mr. Aloukik Pai i/b Neuty Thakkar for the Petitioner
Mr. R. J. Ghag i/b Swati Gawde for Respondent No. 1
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 5th FEBRUARY 2024.
P.C.
1. Heard. This petition challenges the order dated 14 th June 2019
passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ('MRT') allowing the
application for condonation of delay and restoring the Revision
Application to the file.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application
was filed after a period of more than four years for restoration of the
Revision Application without giving any satisfactory reasons for the
55.9048.19 wp.docx
delay. He pointed out that a vague averment was made in the
application stating that Respondent No. 1 for the first time came to
know about the dismissal of his Revision Application through a friend.
He submits that no steps were taken by Respondent No. 1 to find
about the pendency of his Revision Application. He submits that a
vague application ought not to have been allowed by the MRT. He
submits that there is total lack of diligence on the part of Respondent
No. 1. He submitted that MRT has allowed the application on
erroneous ground that for technicalities, Respondent No. 1 should not
lose an opportunity of a fair hearing.
3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramati
Bhagwandas Vithlani Vs. Navjivan Gulab Gaikwad & Ors 1. He in
particular relies upon paragraph 10 and 11 of the said Judgment in
support of his submission that though the Courts are required to be
liberal in ensuring that a party is not prevented from a fair opportunity
to pursue the proceedings, the conduct of the party and the nature of
explanation given is also required to be seen. He submits that as per
1 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 563
55.9048.19 wp.docx
the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said decision, a party cannot be allowed to benefit from a false
defence. He further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that in such matters, the Courts must be vigilant to ensure that liberal
approach of the Court is not abused by a party who has set up a false
case.
4. In reference to the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to a letter of intimation issued by MRT intimating the
party regarding the order passed. He submits that the said letter
indicates that order of dismissal of the Revision of Respondent No. 1
was intimated to him by MRT. He therefore submits that Respondent
No. 1 has come up with a false case that he was not aware about the
proceedings.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
on the date when the Revision was dismissed for non prosecution, his
Advocate had appeared and had requested for time to take
instructions. However, in spite of seeking time, the Revision
Application was dismissed for non prosecution. He submitted that in
55.9048.19 wp.docx
the Application for condonation of delay and restoration, Respondent
No. 1 had come up with a specific case that he was not intimated by
his Advocate with respect to dismissal of his Revision Application. He
submitted that Respondent No. 1 has clearly stated in clause F of his
Application for restoration as well as in paragraph 5 of his delay
condonation application that Respondent No. 1 had learnt about the
dismissal of his Revision Application through a friend on 15 th May
2018. Thereafter, it is explained that in what manner the steps are
taken and application was filed on 30 th May 2018. Learned counsel
submitted that perusal of the Rozanama would indicate that Revision
Application was pending for service upon the Respondents. He thus
submitted that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to a fair opportunity of
hearing the Revision Application on merits. He thus supported the
impugned order and submitted that MRT has examined in detail the
reasons given by Respondent No. 1 and has rightly condoned the
delay and restored the Revision Application for hearing it on merits.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties. I
have perused the record. Perusal of the Rozanama indicates that
55.9048.19 wp.docx
Revision Application was pending for service upon Respondents. It
appears that on earlier few dates, none had appeared for the Revision
Applicants and the matter was kept for service upon the Respondents.
On 12th November 2013, matter was adjourned for taking steps for
service upon Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in Revision Application.
Thereafter, entries dated 27th November 2013 and 16th January 2014
indicates that Revision Application was adjourned for awaiting service
upon the Respondents. It appears that on 28 th February 2014, learned
advocate for Respondent No. 1 had requested for time to take steps,
however, the Revision Application was dismissed for non prosecution
without recording any reasons for not granting time to take steps.
7. It appears that for condonation of delay as well as restoration
application Respondent No. 1 has stated in his application that he was
unaware about the dismissal of his Revision Application and
immediately after he learnt about the dismissal of his Revision
Application on 15th May 2018, he took steps to file restoration
application alongwith delay condonation application. The applications
also state that Respondent No. 1 was not intimated by his Advocate
55.9048.19 wp.docx
about the dismissal of his Revision Application.
8. So far as submissions on behalf of the Petitioner that the letter of
intimation issued by MRT indicates that Respondent No. 1 was aware
about dismissal of the Revision Application, I do not find any
substance. Learned MRT in the impugned order has recorded that
there was no acknowledgment on record about service of intimation.
Hence, it cannot be said that in view of the issuance of the intimation
letter, Respondent No. 1 was aware of dismissal of his Revision
Application. In the impugned order, MRT has examined the reasons
given by Respondent No. 1 and has held that Respondent No. 1 is
entitled for a fair opportunity of hearing on merits.
9. In view of the facts of the present case, in my view, principles of
law laid down by the Ho'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taramati
Vithlani are not applicable to the present case. There is nothing on
record to show that Respondent No. 1 was aware about the dismissal
of his Revision Application. Hence, it cannot be said that Respondent
No. 1 had made any false statement before MRT.
10. By a well reasoned order, after examining all the contentions of
55.9048.19 wp.docx
the parties, MRT has condoned the delay and restored the Revision
Application to file. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the reasons
recorded in the impugned order. Hence, there is no ground made out
for exercising powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
11. The petition is devoid of any merits. Petition is dismissed.
12. It is clarified that in the event of any further default on the part of
Respondent No. 1, MRT will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in
absence of Respondent No. 1.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2024 21:02:04
