HARISHCHANRA CHANDRAHAS PARIKH Vs. MAKBUL MOHMADALI VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Ansari, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Since a short issue is involved in the revision application, the same is finally heard and decided, today.

(3.) At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr.Shah, appearing for the applicants has submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside since, the same is premised on an incorrect appreciation of facts. It is submitted by him that initially, the applicants have filed an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2008 passed in H.R.P. Suit No.2255 of 2004. The respondents, being landlords, filed the said suit to recover arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises against the applicants- tenants. The applicants filed a delay condone application and prayed for condonation of delay of 93 months and 15 days caused in preferring the civil appeal. He has submitted that the applicants came to know that the concerned suit was disposed of ex parte on 9/1/2008, thereafter they preferred Restoration Application No.187 of 2013, which was dismissed on 30/1/2015, against the said order the applicants preferred Special Civil Application No.3164 of 2015, before this Court which was withdrawn on 04. 01.2016, with a view to file appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, it is submitted thart thereafter, the appeal was preferred with the application seeking condonation of delay, which has been rejected by considering the delay of 93 months 15 days. It is submitted by him that the applicants bona fidely pursed their cause in a wrong forum and hence, the Civil Court should have appreciated such fact. It is submitted that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the applicant, hence the delay was required to be condoned. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Steel corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2015 (7) SCC 58] and has submitted that Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, is required to be considered liberally. Reliance is also placed on the paragraph Nos.41 to 43. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the concerned Court for deciding the appeal on merits.