Kamarjahan Abdulaziz Ansari v. Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited Through Chief Commercial Manager And 2 ORS.

Before : Sachin B. Bhansali, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 15th October, 2024 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

CHOL/438/2024 in WPL/2456/2023 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Mr. Zaman Ali, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Satish Kamat, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

None present for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is taken out by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 14.02.2024, rejecting captioned Petition under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that respondents were served with the Chamber Order as per Affidavit of Service, which is on record. Despite service, none appeared for and on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support and Additional Affidavit to the Chamber Order, explaining delay caused in filing present Chamber Order. It is contended that due to lack of communication with Advocate on record, office objections could not be removed within time. It is contended in Additional Affidavit that the applicant, being a senior citizen, is having health issues due to which delay of 159 days caused in filing present Chamber Order.

Perused Affidavit in Reply filed by respondent no. 1, which is based on merits of the captioned Petition. Ld. Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 gives no objection for setting aside Order dated 14.02.2024 passed in the captioned Petition and restoration of captioned petition.

2 Before : Sachin B. Bhansali, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 15th October, 2024 contd....

CHOL/438/2024 in WPL/2456/2023 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Reason mentioned in the Affidavit-in-Support appears to be bonafide, and substantial justice cannot be denied on technical ground.

However, it appears that considerable delay of 159 days, caused in filing present Chamber Order. In my view, said delay needs to be compensated in terms of cost, to which ld.

Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that he is ready to compensate aforesaid delay by depositing cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

In view thereof, delay of 159 days, caused in filing present Chamber Order, is condoned and the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today. The Chamber Order is signed separately.

Upon payment of cost, the petitioner to remove office objections on the Petition and get the same registered and/or numbered within two weeks from the date of uploading of order, failing the petition to stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 15.10.2024 Prothonotary and Senior Master