GOVIND GANPAT KAMBLE Vs. PANDHARINATH KONDAJI KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.330 of 1979 for possession of the suit house. By judgment and decree dated 21.2.1992 the learned Civil Judge J.D. Sangamner decreed the suit with costs and directed the petitioner/defendants to deliver the possession of the suit house to the plaintiff within a period of one month, failing therein, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same through the Court at the costs of the defendant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant had preferred the Regular Civil Appeal alongwith the application seeking condonation of delay caused in fling the appeal. By order dated 8.8.1997 the learned District Judge has allowed the application seeking condonation of delay caused in fling the appeal subject to the costs of Rs.200/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said costs of Rs.200/- within ten days and after depositing of the aaa/- costs, said appeal was directed to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal. It is also made clear in the operative part of the order that, if, the applicant/petitioner herein would fail to deposit the costs of Rs.200/- within ten days from today, then this application shall be treated as rejected. In the year 2007 the petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition against the said conditional order passed by the First Appellate Court while disposing off the application seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner remained under the impression that order dated 8.8.1997 directing the petitioner/defendant to deposit the costs of Rs.200/- has been complied with. Learned counsel submits that the matter relates to the house property and, the petitioner came to know about the fnality of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on account of their failure to pay the costs of Rs.200/- in Regular Darkhast No.161 of 1995. The petitioner came to know about the same on 9.8.2007 and thus immediately within a month, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Writ petition is thus deserves to be allowed by permitting the petitioner/defendant to deposit the costs of Rs.200/- and after registration of the appeal, the First Appellate Court may be directed to dispose off the appeal in a time bound manner.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that Ten years after the order passed by the First Appellate Court condoning the delay subject to costs of Rs.200/-(Rs.Two Hundred), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the respondent/plaintiff could not get the fruits of the decree even in the year 2007 when the decree passed by the Trial Court way back in the year 1992 has attained fnality. There is no justifcation for such an inordinate delay in even approaching this Court. Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.