Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Delay appln.302.18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Delay Application No.302 of 2018
Baliram K. Naikade ..Applicant
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of
Gr.Mumbai ..Respondent
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 27th August, 2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Ravindra Singh for applicant.
Advocate Mr.A. V. Divate for respondent (MMC)
O R A L O R D E R
By way of this application, the applicant/proposed
appellant sought to condone the delay of approximately five years in
preferring the appeal against the order of Inquiry Officer dated 26th
September,2013 in enquiry no.NW/01/ESTT/2013.
2 I have heard Mr.Singh for applicant and Mr.Divate for
respondent (MMC).
3 It is contended that the appellant was never served with the
copy of the order and for the first time he came to be served with the
copy of impugned order on 28th March,2018 during the course of
hearing of the suit filed by the applicant being L.C. Suit No.1883 of
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Delay appln.302.18
2012.
4 Ld.counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the
application vide his say recorded below the application. It is submitted
that the present applicant had also filed a Suit No.1883/12 for
injunction to restrain the respondent (MCGM) from dispossessing the
applicant from the inquiry premises without following due process of
law. The respondent in the said suit have contended that they have
already followed due process of law as they issued notice under Section
105(B) of the MMC Act.
5 Ld.counsel for the respondent further submits that after a
full fledge inquiry, in which the applicant also participated, the
impugned order for eviction was passed on 26th September,2013. A
copy of AForm was also duly served on the appellant on 17 th
October,2013 which was acknowledged by the appellant. As the above
said suit has ripen for judgment, the present application has been filed
after five years. The ld.counsel prayed to reject the same. Ld.counsel
filed the documents on record in support of his submissions.
6 I have considered the submissions of both the sides.
7 At the outset, the documents on record filed on behalf of
the respondent i.e. an application for certified copy on behalf of Baliram
Naikade dated 30th September,2013 shows that the applicant had
applied for certified copy of the order dated 26th September,2013 and
also copy of crossexamination. The same were supplied to the
applicant on 4th October,2013. The document at page nos.44 and 45
reflects the receipt for payment for certified copies. The applicant does
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Delay appln.302.18
not deny the contention of the respondents about this fact. In such
circumstances, the contention of the applicant that during the pendency
of the aforesaid suit, the applicant came to the knowledge about the
impugned order appears to be totally false before the court. The
applicant does not deserve any leniency in condoning the delay of more
than five years in preferring the appeal. Hence, I pass the following
order:
O R D E R
Delay Application No.302/18 stands rejected with costs .
27/08/2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 27/08/2018
Transcribed on : 27/08/2018
Signed by HHJ on :
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Delay appln.302.18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 29/08/2018 (At 11.00 a.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V.GANEDIWALA(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 27th August,2018
Order signed by P.O. on 28th August,2018
Order uploaded on 29th August,2018
-- 4 of 4 --