NANDKISHOR S/O DAMODHAR WADGAONKAR Vs. GAJANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the parties.

(2.) IT is the case of the revision applicants that:

(3.) IT is submitted that when first application was filed by the respondents, there was delay of more than one year to file such application. The said application was dismissed in default in the year 2009 and thereafter another application is filed in the year 2011. It is submitted that there was more than 5 years delay in filing second application for restoration of the earlier application and suit to its original file. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicants further submits that the trial court itself has not accepted the grounds which are stated in the application for condonation of delay, however, proceeded to condone the delay merely on the ground of interest of justice. It is submitted that when there is an inordinate delay, some right is accrued in favour of other party and therefore, the trial court should have considered the explanation offered by the respondents in support of their prayer for condonation of delay in minute details. The learned counsel for the revision applicants pressed into service exposition of this Court in a case of DarachandHarakchand Oswal & others vs. Suresh Waman Karmarkar & another reported in 2003 (1) Mah.L.J.472 and submitted that, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed in default and another suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable.