Lourdes Veronica Baptista v. The Deputy Director Of Land Records Konkan Pradesh

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

Ms. Baptista Dione Claire Robert, Advocate for the applicant.

Ms. Manisha Gawde, A.G.P for respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 8.

Ms. Mustafa Bohrar i/b. Solomon and Company, Advocate for respondent no. 3(c).

Mr. D. V. Deokar I/b. Parimal Shroff and company, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 29.04.2025, rejecting captioned Petition under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections by condonding delay of 3 days caused in filing present Chamber Order.

Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support to the Chamber Order filed by the applicant, contents of which are self-explanatory.

The present Chamber Order is opposed by respondent nos. 3 (c) and 4. Respondent no. 4 filed Affidavit in Reply. Perused the same. It is vehemently argued by respondent no. 3(c) and 4 that the petitioner wrongly calculated delay of 3 days, in fact, there is delay of 33 days caused in filing present Chamber Order. The petitioner assigned entire blame on the negligence of the clerk and even no sufficient reason has been assigned nor there is averment in the Chamber Order about delay.

Hence, delay cannot be condoned and captioned Petition may not be restored to file. It is further argued that initially matter has been argued before the Hon'ble Court,

2 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, contd....

therefore, the present Chamber Order needs to be entertained by the Hon'ble Court. In alternative, it is argued that in the event delay is condoned and captioned Petition is to be restored, then heavy cost to be imposed.

I have heard both the sides extensively. Also perused record. It is not in dispute that after filing of Writ Petition by virtue of Order dated 08.11.2023, the petitioner was directed to remove office objections within stipulated period. Said Order was extended and finally on 29.04.2025, the petitioner was directed to remove office objections within period of four weeks. The effect of non-removal of office objections, is considered from 27.05.2025. The present Chamber Order is filed on 30.06.2025 hence, there is delay of only 3 days and not of 33 days. Order of removal of office objections within stipulated period is an administrative order and The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Prem Siddha Co-Op. Housing Society Vs. High Power Committee and other reported in 2016

(5) Mh.L.J., Page 778 observed that this Authority has powers to restore the matter, rejected under O.S.Rule 986 for noncompliance of office objections. Therefore, the present Chamber Order cannot be required to be placed before the Hon'ble Court. Hence, I do not accept argument of the respondents that the present Chamber Order to be entertained by the Hon'ble Court.

As far as objections regarding delay caused in filing present Chamber Order and sufficient reasons are concerned, it is settled law that it is not a number of days delay to be considered, but sufficient reasons has to be considered. At the same time, it is also settled law that negligence on the part of advocate, parties cannot be suffered. The petitioner assigned reason that due to inadvertence and

3 Before : Anil H. Laddhad, contd....

bonafide error on the part of clerk, office objections could not be removed. I do not find any reason that Advocate or his clerk has intentionally caused delay or act against its own interest. Reasons assigned are on the affidavit. Hence, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that delay of 03 days caused in filing present Chamber Order needs to be condoned and captioned Petition needs to be restored to its original file. Inconveniency caused to the respondent nos. 3 (c) and 4 can be compensated by imposing cost. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :

O R D E R

The delay of 03 days caused in filing present Chamber Order is condoned and present Chamber Order is granted as prayed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to the respondent nos. 3(c) and 4, equally. Chamber Order is signed separately.

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

Date : 22.07.2025 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2025.07.23 14:46:05 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA