Final Order 1

Order Details: Miscellaneous appeal
Pdf Text: MHCC010091902019
CNR NO. MHCC010091902019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
MISC APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.8840 OF 1994
Jitendra Sampatlal Sanghavi ]… Plaintiff.
V/s.
Smt. Ranjan T. Kubadia (Since deceased) ]
1(a) Mahendra Thakershi Kubadia ]
alias Shah & Ors. ]... Defendants.
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Manjrekar for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Bhandari for defendant No.5(a).
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 19th April, 2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Misc. Application is filed by the defendant
No.5(a)/Applicant in Review Petition Stamp No.9789 of 2019. It was
submitted that originally suit No.3455 of 1994 was filed before the
Hon'ble High Court later on it was transferred to the Bombay City Civil
-- 1 of 4 --
2 MA 84/2019 in
Suit 8840/1994
Court. A preliminary Decree was passed on 16.02.2019 directing the
defendant to furnish Accounts before the Commissioner. The applicant
could not appear before the Commissioner and at the time of taking the
Account, the applicant felt necessity to file the Review Petition to review
the order dated 16.02.2019. Since the parties to the suit were senior
citizens, the matter was transferred to C.R.No.9. The applicant coud
not appear because he was not having knowledge regarding the transfer
of the suit. However, since the Review Petition was to be decided by
the Court which passed order, the matter was transferred to this Court.
During this period the applicant could not file the Review Petition
within the time and there was delay of 139 days. It was submitted that
the applicant has a good case on merits and no harm will cause to the
respondent if the delay is condoned and therefore the delay in filing
review Petition be condoned.
2. The Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) filed their reply to the
Miscellaneous Application. It was submitted that application is filed at
belated stage i.e. after 161 days of passing of the order. The Limitation
period for filing Review Petition is mandatory and therefore said the
period cannot be extended. The application be therefore rejected.
3. Heard Learned Advocate for both the parties. Admittedly
there is delay in filing the Review Petition, the reason stated by the
applicant in the application appears to be just and sufficient. It seems
that the delay was not intentional and was caused even after due
diligence by the applicant. In order to give the effect to the preliminary
decree dated 16.02.2021, it is necessary to condone the delay in order
to provide an opportunity to the applicant. No prejudice will cause to
-- 2 of 4 --
3 MA 84/2019 in
Suit 8840/1994
the Respondent, however, the applicant will suffer serious prejudice if
the delay is not condone, therefore, I, proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. The Miscellaneous Application No.84 of 2019 allowed
2. The delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
3. The Review Petition be registered accordingly.
Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 19042022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 19042022
Transcribed on : 22042022
checked on : 22042022
Signed on : 25042022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 MA 84/2019 in
Suit 8840/1994
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
25.04.2022 at 04.45 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
19.04.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 25.04.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 25.04.2022
-- 4 of 4 --