SNEHLATA GHORPADE Vs. PRINCESS SARDARAJE GAEKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have brought under challenge the order dated 2.8.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the Court rejected the application (Exhibit-4) seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application ("MCA" for short) No.72 of 2007.

(2.) ORDINARILY the Court would lean towards liberal construction of "sufficient cause" and would be lenient on the point of "satisfactory explanation" in the matter of delay condonation. Thus, when the order rejecting the exhibit-4 application seeking condonation of delay, is brought under challenge, then it becomes necessary to take note of, in complete details, the relevant facts in light of which the impugned order below exhibit-4 came to be passed. The facts may be summarized thus:-

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record. 5.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as the MCA No.28 of 1999 is concerned at one point of time the advocate had argued the application and made his submissions on behalf of the applicants and thereafter the hearing of the MCA No.28 of 1999 was adjourned for submission to be made by opponents however the said MCA28 of 1999 came to be dismissed for default which fact came to the notice of the petitioners only on 10.4.2007 and immediately thereafter on 4.5.2007 the MCA No.72 of 2007 was filed. He has submitted that after the arguments the advocate of the applicant-present petitioners were over and the hearing was adjourned for arguments by the opposite side, the presence of the applicants or their advocate was not so vital, so as to dismiss the application. He also submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners did not know about the dismissal of MCA No.28 of 1999, hence delay in filing MCA No.72 of 2007 ought to have been condoned. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that sufficient cause should be construed liberally and a litigant ought to be allowed to contest the case on merits instead of its rejection on technical ground. He also submitted that the facts justify condonation of delay. 5.2 Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition and thereby MCA No.72 of 2007 as well. It has been contended that right from the presentation of the Special Civil Suit No.499 of 1987 there has been consistent negligence towards the proceedings which have been ignored at every stage. It is evident from the fact that each of the application had to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even the suit got abated. According to the respondents all the facts conjointly demonstrate negligence and indifference during the proceedings. The respondents have also contended that from the point when the suit came to be abated all along the proceedings have been conducted with ill-intention of grabbing share, in the property of late Kamladevi Raje Gaekwad and that therefore also the applications do not deserve to be entertained and has been rightly rejected.