Final Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: CNR No. MHSCA30007602024
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(APPELLATE BENCH)
(BANDRA BRANCH)
MARJI No. 75 of 2024
IN
Revision application no. of 2024
IN
Order below (Exhibit) no. 11
IN
RAD Suit No. 170 of 2021
Santosh Sahebrao Sutar : Applicant
(Org. Plaintiff)
VERSUS
The Court receiver, High Court & anr. : Respondents
(Orig. Defendant & Intervenor)
Appearance :
Mr. Harsh T. Pawar, learned Advocate for the Applicant
Exparte against respondent no.1
Mr. Revnkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.2
Coram : A.S. Khadse
Additional Chief Judge
And
D.R. Mali
Judge, Court Room No. 31
Date : 16.11.2024
ORDER : (Per A.S. Khadse, Additional Chief Judge)
By filing said application, applicant has prayed for
-- 1 of 3 --
2 MARJI 68 of 2024
condoning the delay of 5 days caused in filing the revision against
order dated 25.04.2024 in Exh. 11 in RAD Suit No.170 of 2021 which
had been allowed.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under-
According to applicant, the said order was passed on
25.04.2024. He had gone to his native state in second week of April
2024 and as his uncle was ill he extended his stay, he came to know
about order on returning to Mumbai on 15th July 2024. Thus, there is
delay of 5 days in filing revision against said order dated 25.04.2024.
Therefore, he has filed the said application.
3. The respondent no.2 opposed the said application by
filing his say on application. In it, he has stated that the reason for
delay in filing revision is not satisfactory. Therefore, this application
be rejected with costs.
4. On the basis of above rival submissions of both parties,
following points arise for our consideration. We have recorded our
findings against each of them for the reasons stated in subsequent
paras:-
Sr.No. Points Findings
1. Does the applicant has shown
sufficient cause for condoning the
delay as prayed? In the affirmative
2. What order ? This MARJI no. 75 of
2024 is allowed as
per final order.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 MARJI 68 of 2024
R E A S O N S
5. The learned counsel for both the sides have reiterated
their grounds raised in the said application and say respectively.
Hence, to avoid repetition the same are not reproduced over here
once again.
AS TO POINT NO. 1 :-
6. On perusal of case papers it appears that there is delay
of 5 days only. When the said delay is considered in the light of
submissions of both the parties at that time it appears that the said
period of delay is marginal delay. As per settled principle of law
marginal delay needs to be condoned. In view of the same and the
foregoing facts, applicant has shown sufficient cause for condoning
the delay. Thus, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :-
7. In view of answer to point no.1, this application needs to
be allowed. Hence, the order.
O R D E R
1. MARJI no. 75 of 2024 is allowed.
2. The revision be registered as per rules.
I agree,
(D.R. Mali) (A.S. Khadse)
Judge Additional Chief Judge
C. R. No. 31 C. R. No. 31
16.11.2024 16.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --