Rajendra Parashuram Mali And ORS v. Parvati Keru Desai (Mhatre) And ORS

30. ao 778.18.doc Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 778 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1000 OF 2018 Rajendra Parashuram Mali and ors.

.. Appellants Vs.

Parvati Keru Desai Desai (Mhatre) and ors.

.. Respondents Mr.Shashipal Shankar, for the Appellants.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE : 01st AUGUST, 2019 P.C. :

Heard.

2.

Order under challenge in this Appeal is dated 20/07/2017 passed by the trial Court dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 3950 of 2014 filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the order dismissing the Suit in default. There was delay of 404 days. None appears for the respondents though they are duly served.

1/2

30. ao 778.18.doc 3.

Explanation for delay given by the appellants appears to be satisfactory, therefore deserves to be accepted. There is no contest from the respondents. Even from the reading of the order of the trial Court, it appears that trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and also the application for restoration. To contest the Suit on merits, one opportunity needs to be given to the plaintiff subject to imposing reasonable costs. The impugned order is set aside.

4.

In this view of the matter, Subject to costs of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the respondents, Appeal from Order is allowed. The Notice of Motion No. 3950 of 2014 stands allowed. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application also stands disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) 2/2