VILAS MADHUKAR KUTE Vs. DATTU GENU YEOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein has assailed the order dtd. 20/08/2019 whereby learned Judge has dismissed the Application for Condonation of Delay in fling an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.

(2.) The Respondent No.1 herein had fled a suit for specifc performance against the Petitioner (Defendant No.10) and Respondent Nos.2 to 10 were arrayed in the suit as Defendant Nos.2 to 9. The records reveal that all the defendants were duly served with summons. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 12/8/2015. The Petitioner has sought to condone the delay in fling the Application mainly on the ground that he had learnt about the said judgment only on 1/12/2016. The Petitioner claims that on receipt of summons, he had approached Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 and requested them to defend the suit. He further stated that Respondent Nos.2 to 10 appointed one advocate Qazi and took his signature on the vakalatnama. The Petitioner further claims that he could not appear in the court as he was sufering from severe chest pain and was hospitalized for a reasonably long time. He contends that he learnt about the decree only when Respondent No.1 tried to obstruct and interfere with his possession.

(3.) After enquiry, the learned Judge held that the Petitioner, who was duly served with summons had engaged a lawyer on behalf of other Defendants (Respondent Nos.2 to 9). The Trial Court further held that the Petitioner was sick only for a period of fve days and took note of the admission of the Petitioner that he was in contact with his lawyer. The Trial Court therefore disbelieved the contention of the Petitioner that he had learnt about the decree only on 1/12/2016. The Trial Court therefore dismissed the application holding that the Petitioner had failed to make out sufcient cause to condone the delay of about 11 months in fling the application.