Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Civil M.A.No.61/19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2019
IN
STAMP NO. 7571 OF 2019
Nanikutty Shankaran Nair
Legal heir of Shri Shankaran K.H.
Nair ...Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai. …Respondent.
Appearance: Advs. Mr. Giriraj with Ms. Kavita Sharma for the appellant
Adv. Mr. Divate for the respondent.
Coram : Ashutosh N. Karmarkar,
2nd Additional Principal Judge
(Court Room No. 54)
Dated : 17th July, 2019
ORDER
1. This is an application for condonation of delay.
2. The appellant has challenged the final order dated
11.04.2019, of the respondent Corporation for eviction of enquiry
premises . The applicant is one of the 300 odd other similarly situated
persons who have been served by identical orders. The appellant was
required to approach Advocate for advise regarding the course of action
to be taken. The appellant had to collect number of documents in order
to file appeal. Some of the documents were not in place and in proper
condition as the allotments have taken place as far as in 1969 in most
cases. Since, some certain documents were not available, the appellant
was required to obtain the same by moving application to the concerned
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Civil M.A.No.61/19
department. The appellant was required to spent substantial time for it.
So there is delay of 58 days in filing appeal. The applicant has a good
case for intervention of this Court. The respondent may initiate action
upon the impugned orders at any time. If the appellant is denied an
opportunity of being heard they would suffer loss. The delay is not
intentional.
3. The Ld. Advocate Mr. Divate appeared on behalf of the
respondent and raised liberal objection to this application.
4. I have heard both the sides.
5. According to the appellant, he was required to consume
time to engage Advocate and to decide course of action. Some of the
documents were not available as those are of the year 1969 onwards.
So, they were required to obtain the same from the concerned
department.
6. The Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that
after passing of the impugned order, the applicant was having ample
time to prefer appeal. No justifiable reasons are made out.
7. It is well settled that while deciding the application for
condonation of delay liberal approach is to be adopted. At the same
time, it is to be seen that the delay on the part of the applicant is not
deliberate or not intentional. It is for the applicant to establish that
there is sufficient cause for the delay which has occurred.
8. The appellant has contended that, they consumed time to
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Civil M.A.No.61/19
approach Advocate and seeks his advise for necessary action. It appears
that the premises referred to in the matter was alloted to the appellant
long back. The appellant has contended that some of the documents
were required to be obtained from the concerned department as those
were not available with them. The contents in the application are
supported by affidavit. On the other hand, the contents in the
application are not specifically denied by the respondent, nor affidavit
is filed by them. So, it cannot be said that the reasons for delay in
preferring appeal are not sufficient or reasonable. It appears that, the
notice regarding eviction was received by the appellant. Matter can be
decided on its own merit.
9. The impugned order is of 11.04.2019, and the appeal is
preferred on 08.07.2019. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant has also
submitted that, at the most, the respondent can be compensated if the
Court deems fit. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the application
deserves to be allowed with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass order
in following terms.
ORDER
1. Misc. Application No. 61 of 2019 is allowed subject to costs of
Rs. 1000/ payable to the respondent.
2. The amount of costs be deposited within two weeks from the
date of the order.
( Ashutosh N. Karmarkar )
2nd Additional Principal Judge,
Date : 17.07.2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 17.07.2019
Transcribed on : 18.07.2019
Date of sign : 18.07.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Civil M.A.No.61/19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME : 18.07.2019 3.05 P.M.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : S.S.BATHE
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.) Shri A.N. Karmarkar
(C.R.No. 54)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
17.07.2019
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 18.07.2019
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on 18.07.2019
-- 4 of 4 --