Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Delay Condonation Appln.53/18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Delay Condonation Application No.53 of 2018
In
Misc. Appeal No.19 of 2014
Shri Praful Laxman Gaikwad ..Appellant (Org. Respondent)
V/s.
1. Chief Executive Officer
Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East)
2. The Competent Authority ..Respondents (Org. Applicants)
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 28th March,2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr. Santosh R. Singh for the appellant.
Advocate Mr. M.B. Jadhav for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R
This is an application to condone delay of 468 days for
filing an application to set aside dismissal order dated 05.05.2016 in
Misc. Application No.127/15.
2. I have heard learned both the counsels on behalf of both
the parties. Perused the application and the reply.
3. The appellant mainly blames the casual and non attentive
approach of his Constituted Attorney and his advocate for dismissal of
the motion for restoration of the appeal. Learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of N. Balkrishnan V/s M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Delay Condonation Appln.53/18
123, wherein it is held that the length of delay is not significant but the
acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the
application for want of sufficient ground and relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and
Anr., V/s Bharat Tulshiram Nade reported in 2018(2) Mh.L.J. 372,
wherein it is held that on the basis of vague pleadings of procedural
delay, it will not be appropriate to condone such inordinate delay.
5. I have considered the submission on behalf of both the
parties. At the outset, the order of eviction dated 24.05.2013 passed by
the competent authority under Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 was
challenged in the Misc. Appeal No.19/14. The said appeal got registered
after condoning delay in filing appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed
in default vide order dated 08.07.2015. The restoration application No.
127/14 for restoring the said appeal was filed on 24.07.2015. The
restoration application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on
05.05.2016. Now the applicant prays to restore the said application by
condoning delay of 648 days from the date of order. The circumstances
mentioned above demonstrate the casual and lethargic approach of the
appellant in dealing with all the proceedings before the Court. The
appeal came to be filed after condoning the delay. The appeal came to
be dismissed in default. Thereafter restoration application came to be
dismissed in default. The present application for setting aside the
dismissal order is again filed after delay of around 11/2 years without
quality explanation. Vague and omnibus pleading about casual
approach of his attorney and counsels.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Delay Condonation Appln.53/18
6. In addition to this, the execution of the eviction order is
already done and the possession of the inquiry premises is already taken
by the respondent no.1. In such circumstances, I do not find merit in
this application Hence, I pass following order :
O R D E R
Delay Condonation Application No.53/18 stands rejected.
28/01/2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 28/03/2018
Transcribed on : 31/03/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 31/03/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs. K.S. Jadhav
Upload date and time: 07/04/2018 (12.30 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V.GANEDIWALA(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 28th March,2018
Order signed by P.O. on 31st March,2018
Order uploaded on 7th April, 2018
-- 3 of 3 --