STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. WASNIK VASANTRAO KISANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application is for condonation of delay of 46 days in preferring the first appeal against judgment and order dated 1.9.2012 passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in Special Civil Suit No. 238 of 2011. The brief facts are that the plaintiff (respondent) a practicing advocate engaged by the State of Maharashtra in many cases in the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts to pursue matters on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, who represented the State Government since the year 1999 had raised bills for his professional fees in the sum of Rs.6,61,250/. Despite sufficient letters to State Government and demand of bills on several occasions, the professional fees of respondent advocate remained unpaid. The learned advocate also demanded interest on the outstanding dues towards his professional fees. These bill amounts swell to sum of Rs.12,27,223/ - for which Special Suit No. 238 of 2011 was instituted in the Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The suit was heard and partly decreed with costs as defendants were directed to pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs.12,27,223/to the plaintiff advocate with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.12,27,223/till payment. This decree was passed on 1.9.2012 in presence of Shri Hinge, learned Government Pleader for defence. Thus, although the decree was passed on 1.9.2012, an application for certified copy of the judgment and order was applied for on 15.12.2012, when limitation period to file first appeal had already expired. According to learned Government Pleader, certified copy of impugned judgment and order was obtained on 21.12.2012, and thereafter, Solicitor to Government, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on 6.12.2012 issued Resolution No. 847/M. Branch for filing first appeal. On 10.12.2012, Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, received copy of the Resolution and on 11.12.2012, Office of Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai, informed the Deputy Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and District Government Pleader, Thane, for documents, to take further steps. Thus, on 21.1.2012, Office of the Regional Dairy Development Officer, Mumbai Division, Navi Mumbai, forwarded the certified copies of judgment and decree and all other relevant documents to the Office of Government Pleader, and on 24.12.2012, certified copies were received by the Office of Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay, and on 28.12.2012, AGP concerned drafted the first appeal and the civil application for stay. This is how the present application is filed for condonation of delay of 46 days.

(2.) THE learned advocate, who is respondent - Shri Vasantrao Wasnik, strongly objected application for condonation of delay on the ground that he has been made to wait for his professional fees, since the year 1999, which caused him immense hardship and inconvenience, despite the fact that the State of Maharashtra admitted its liability to pay professional fees, while suit was pending. Although the suit was decreed for his professional fees, even then, State of Maharashtra unreasonably waited until the appeal period expired, and thereafter also, on flimsy excuses, with a view to delay payment of professional fees to the decree holder. The learned advocate Shri Wasnik, therefore, prayed that the application shall be dismissed as no sufficient cause has been made out to explain delay that has occurred in preferring the first appeal. He cited ruling in Amalendu Kumar Bera and others v. State of W.B.2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 117.The Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon Union of India v. Nirpen Sharma,AIR 2011 SC 1237. observed that the express "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of "sufficient cause" for explaining every day's delay. However, it is equally well settled that the Courts albeit liberally considered the prayer for condonation of delay, but in some cases, the Court may refuse to condone the delay in as much as the Government is not expected to keep watch whether the contesting respondent further put the matter in motion. The delay in official business requires it must not have pedantic approach from public justice perspective. Thus, according to the learned advocate, in a case where there are serious laches and negligence on the part of the State in challenging the decree passed in the suit, the State cannot be allowed to wait and plead flimsy, bald excuse for delay to prefer appeal.

(3.) THE application is dismissed.