Bombay High CourtCRA/50/2017rejected at admission stage

Shri Atul S/O Premchand Tajpuria v. Shri. Mukesh S/O Raghunath Lokhande And Others

2017-04-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre2 pages

cra50.17 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2017 Shri Atul s/o Premchand Tajpuria ..vs..

Shri Mukesh s/o Raghunath Lokhande and ors ....................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ....................................................................................................................................................... Shri H.I. Kothari, Counsel for the applicant.

CORAM

: N.W. SAMBRE , J .

DATED : APRIL 12, 2017.

Heard learned counsel Shri H.I. Kothari for the applicant.

The present applicant, plaintiff, in Special Civil Suit No.516 of 2010 preferred a suit for specific performance of contract which came to be decreed against defendants by judgment dated 7.12.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur. Misc. Civil Application No.513 of 2016 was preferred before learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, questioning judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.516 of 2010, seeking condonation of delay of 60 days caused in filing appeal. Learned District and Sessions Judge, by order impugned dated 25.1.2017, had condoned the delay. As such, present civil revision application is filed.

.....2/-

cra50.17 24 In support of contentions, learned counsel Shri H.I. Kothari urges that competence in law, on the part of appellant to prefer an appeal and an application for condonation of delay, is an issue which has not been appreciated by learned District Judge while condoning delay. According to him, appellant/defendant No.3, cannot narrate reasons for condonation of delay on behalf of other defendants and as such, application should have been rejected.

Having perused order, which is questioned in present civil revision application, I hardly see any reason to interfere with order of condonation of delay since learned District Judge has exercised his discretion as vested in him lawfully.

Apart from above, issue as regards competency of defendant No.3 to said reasons for condonation of delay, which were within knowledge of other defendants, is such an issue which will be of hardly any consequence as admittedly defendant No.3 was holding power of attorney of appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2.

No case for interference, particularly for failure to exercise discretion, is made out. The civil revision application lacks of merits and is rejected. JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-