MANHARGIRI RAJGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Application has been filed by the applicants-original appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on the grounds stated in the application inter alia that the applicants were financially weak and could not make the financial arrangement to immediately challenge the order dated 04.10.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Ccourt, Valsad. It is also contended that the time was consumed for making financial arrangement. Further, it is also contended that the applicants' advocate, who was handling the case and guiding them, did not properly guide the applicants and did not inform about the availability of the remedy of Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

(2.) Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the opponent no.4-Trust specifically contending that the say of the applicant that they are economically weak cannot be believed as they have been fighting the litigations for seven years and after the impugned order was passed, they have filed further proceedings at Valsad and one petition is filed before the Tribunal. It is further contended in the affidavit that second reason that the advocate, who was handling, was not guided them properly is not correct because the affidavit of the said advocate has been filed. It is, therefore, contended that bare perusal of the affidavit of the said advocate shows that they were having complete information regarding the right of Appeal.

(3.) Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the statements made in the memo of application and it has been stated that the affidavit of the advocate refers to the name of Shri Chaturvedi suggesting that Shri Chaturvedi had Power of Attorney of the applicants. It is also contended that this statements are false as the applicant had not given any Power of Attorney to Shri Chaturvedi. It is also contended that the delay has been occasioned on account of the genuine reason and not intentionally and, therefore, the present application may be allowed.