← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2453/2016dismissedrule discharged

Sajan S/O. Premdas Zamre v. Rajaram M. Fulmali (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Jeevandas Amruta Fulmali Dead, Thr. Lrs. Anil J. Fulmali And Ot

2019-07-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

1 16.WP2453.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITON NO. 2453 OF 2016 Sajan S/o Premdas Zamre ..VS..

Rajaram S/o Mahipat Fulmali (Dead), Thru. His legal heirs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.D. Hajare, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri G.M. Hambarde with Shri M.D. Samel, Advocate for respondents.

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.

DATED : 19TH JULY, 2019.

In this writ petition, a challenge is sought to be raised to the order dated 25.06.1996, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal came to be dismissed.

2.

In the appeal preferred before the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, the order dated 12.04.1972 was sought to be challenged. In the application for condonation of delay it was stated that the petitioner had completed age of 18 years in March 1993 and hence he had preferred the appeal thereafter. The application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was absent and the case was barred by time. The present writ petition has been filed on 30th March 2016 which is almost after 20 years of the order passed by the Maharashtra Land Revenue

2 16.WP2453.16 Tribunal, Nagpur. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner got knowledge of the impugned order only in November 2015. Except this statement there is no further explanation for the delay caused.

3.

Considering the above, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed after lapse of almost 20 years. The explanation in paragraph 6 is not sufficient to entertain the challenge on merits. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as it suffers from delay and laches. No costs. JUDGE Prity G.