SANJAY RAMCHANDRA PARAB Vs. ASHOK D. BHUTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one of the Obstructionists seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in preferring the Civil Revision Application against the judgment dated 4 th May, 2022 in Execution Appeal no. 81 of 2018 in Obstructionists Notice No. 59 of 2003 arising out of R. A. E. Suit No. 1184/3460 of 1990 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The R.A.E. suit was filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 against the Respondent No.3 for recovery of possession of the suit property from Respondent No.3. The Appeal was preferred against order dtd. 20/11/2017 in the Obstructionist Notice No. 59 of 2003 directing the Obstructionists to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.

(2.) Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Interim Applicant submits that the Interim Applicant is one of the Obstructionists and was unaware of the impugned judgment dtd. 4/5/2022 in Execution Appeal No. 81 of 2018 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai. Learned Counsel would submit that the delay has been due to the inattentiveness and fault of the erstwhile advocate. He would submit that the applicant became aware of the impugned judgment at the end of June, 2022 and immediately contacted the erstwhile advocate and requested him to apply for certified copy. Although the Applicant was waiting for the certified copy presuming that the erstwhile advocate had applied for the same but the erstwhile advocate neither responded to him nor gave any information that he had applied for the certified copy. And, when until July, 2022, no good response was received, the Applicant himself applied for the certified copy, which statedly was received by the Applicant on 5 th August, 2022. Thereafter, again the Applicant contacted the erstwhile advocate, however, although the erstwhile advocate assured that he would take steps to challenge the impugned judgment, but till October, 2022 the Applicant did not receive any response. Therefore, the Applicant decided to engage another advocate. Thereafter, it is submitted that the Applicant was collecting the necessary documents and papers for filing the Civil Revision Application and requested the erstwhile advocate for the papers, but the erstwhile advocate failed to hand over the complete set of papers pursuant to which the applicant had to apply for certified copy of the entire proceedings, so as to instruct the new advocate for preparation of the Civil Revision Application. It is submitted that, therefore, there has been a delay and the Applicant was unable to prefer the Civil Revision Application within the stipulated period of 90 days and there has been a delay of 107 days in preferring the Revision Application.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that the delay is due to the inattentiveness and laxity on behalf of the erstwhile advocate and the applicant should not be penalized for the same. Learned Counsel would submit that there is sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay of 107 days in preferring the Civil Revision Application. Mr. Mishra, submits that the applicant has been in the premises since the year 1994. That no harm, loss or prejudice would be caused to the Respondent No.1, if the delay is condoned. However, irreparable loss and prejudice would be caused to the Applicant, if the delay is not condoned. He further submits that there are at least five other obstructionists in respect of the premises on the same land, who have challenged the judgment impugned herein, in respect whereof Civil Revision Applications have already been filed in this Court and therefore it would be unjust if the Civil Revision Application of the present applicant is not heard on merits.