MANIBEN CHANDRAKANT DALAL Vs. KISHORE J. CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Application seeks condonation of delay of 5913 days in filing the Review Petition for seeking a review of the order dtd. 3/10/2001 passed by a single Judge (Coram : V. C. Daga, J., as His Lordship then was) of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 53 of 2001, whereby this Court had passed an order in terms of the Consent Terms filed between the parties therein recording that the eviction suits filed by the Applicant before the Small Causes Court will be transferred to the Bombay High Court. The said order in terms of the Consent Terms is usefully reproduced as under:-

(2.) Mr. Thipsay, learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that as of today the suits stand transferred to the City Civil Court as Short Cause Civil Suit No. 8567 and 8568 of 2002 respectively and that the Applicant continues to contest the suits.

(3.) It is submitted that in December, 2018, the Applicant was for the first time made aware of the facts that the said suits could not be transferred to the Bombay High Court on the basis of a Miscellaneous Civil Application being filed before this Court in view of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Small Causes Court by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the “Bombay Rent Act”) and the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the “Rent Control Act”). That it is only in the year 2018 after consultation with an Advocate of this Court that the Applicant realized for the first time how the nature of proceedings and procedure for Appeal in the Small Causes Court is different from that of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court/City Civil Court. That she was absolutely unaware as to how her right to file an appeal would be different from the decree of the City Civil Court and the effect of such a challenge would prejudice the Applicant heavily. It is submitted that the transfer of the suit to the Bombay High Court was not tenable and without jurisdiction, as the original purpose for the transfer of the eviction suits to the Bombay High Court remains defeated as of today since the eviction suits are pending before the City Civil Court, whereas the suit for specific performance filed by the Respondents stands transferred to the Bombay High Court. That earlier since the hearing and adjudication of the said transferred eviction suits of the Applicants and the High Court Suit No. 1340 of 1994 for specific performance of the purported agreement for sale with respect to the suit premises was necessary together, the said suit no. 1340 of 1994 filed by the Respondents was also transferred to the City Civil Court in the year 2012. That however, in the year 2015, by virtue of a Chamber Summons seeking amendment of the Plaint for enhancement of the claim for damages, the Respondents had obtained an order dtd. 23/12/2012 from the City Civil Court, pursuant to which, the direction for return of Plaint to the Bombay High Court was passed, after which the said suit for specific performance has been transferred back to this Court as suit No. 1340 of 1994 and therefore, the original purpose for the transfer of the eviction suits to the Bombay High Court remains defeated as on date, since the eviction suits are pending before the City Civil Court. It is submitted that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of review was passed on 3/10/2001. That the period of limitation for review as per Article 124 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is 30 days. That the said period expired on 2/11/2001, and therefore, there is a delay of 5913 days in filing the Review Petition.