CHANDRAKANT GOVIND SUTAR Vs. M K ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application under section 115 of the C. P. C. takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Raigad dated 29th July, 1998 in Civil Misc. Application No. 114 of 1997. The said Misc. Application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The District Court rejected that application on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner. That decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision application.

(2.) THIS revision application was heard on 3rd December, 2002, when I was persuaded to take a view that it is maintainable, amended provisions of C. P. C. notwithstanding. However, after that view was pronounced in open Court, immediately thereafter Mr. Oka, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mentioned the matter and in his usual fairness brought to my notice that certain decisions relevant on the issue of maintainability of the revision have not been placed before the Court. He, therefore, requested me not to sign the judgment pronounced in the Court and instead to keep the matters for rehearing on some other day on the question of maintainability of the revision application. This request was acceded to having regard to the dictum of the Apex Court in (Vinod Kumar Singh, Appellant v. Banaras Hindu University, Respondents) A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 371. In this background, along with this petition companion revision applications have been kept for hearing today. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the companion matters have adopted the argument of Mr. Oka.

(3.) ON the previous occasion Mr. Oka supported by other Counsel appearing in the companion petitions contended that the order passed on an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is an order passed in "other proceedings"---as the application is one under section 5 of the Limitation Act. To buttress this proposition, Mr. Oka had relied upon the relevant provisions of Order XLI, Rule 3-A of C. P. C. read with the provisions in Rules 337 and 453 of the Civil Manual applicable to the State of Maharashtra. Relying on these provisions it was contended that the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is not part of the proceedings in the appeal but a substantive or "other proceedings" and, therefore, order passed thereon is not an order passed in appeal. If this contention were to be accepted then, Mr. Oka would be justified in arguing that the revision application would be maintainable because the order passed on application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal would finally dispose of the "other proceedings", namely, proceedings other than the appeal, if the revision was to be allowed in favour of the petitioner. However, in all fairness Mr. Oka has now brought to my notice decisions which would clinch the question that arises for consideration.