NAMDEO Vs. SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Dhotre, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The conduct of the petitioners does not persuade me to entertain the petition. The application filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Maregaon, District Yavatmal in R.C.S. No. 21/2011 dtd. 4/7/2013, being beyond the statutory period of limitation, an application for condonation of delay claimed to have been filed on 29/10/2013 (page 40), which came to be allowed by the order dtd. 29/4/2014 (page 41) at the cost of Rs.2,000.00 payable within a month after which the appeal was directed to be registered. The cost was not paid, thereafter for the first time an application came to be filed for condonation of delay in depositing the amount of costs on 20/12/2017, which came to be registered as Civil M.A. No. 46/2017. By the impugned order dtd. 17/12/2022, Civil M.A. No. 46/2017, has been rejected which rejection has been challenged in the present petition.

(3.) It is contended, that the petitioners were always ready to pay the costs, however, intimation regarding the same was not communicated by the then counsel, as a result of which, the costs was not deposited. When a query was put forth to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether alongwith the application for extention of time an application for deposit of the costs was filed, the answer is in the negative. Today also the state of affairs is that the cost remains undeposited. The impugned order in para 6 records, that after filing of the Civil M.A. No. 46/2017 though the respondents had filed their say on 6/8/2018 thereafter neither the petitioners nor their counsel turned up in the Court nearly for a period of 3 years to advance their arguments and it was only on 21/8/2021, the counsel for the petitioners appeared and filed pursis at Exh.27 alongwith the case laws and thereafter requested the matter to be kept in Lok-Adalat, whereupon the petitioners have not appeared even in the Lok Adalat. The finding therefore has been rendered, that the petitioners have not been diligent in prosecuting the proceedings apart from which there is a delay. Today also the position remains that the cost is not paid, even though a request has been made for permitting to deposit of the costs. Considering this conduct, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.