M/S. PRUDENTIAL GROUP Vs. MR. MILTON FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 31/12/2014 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge at Panaji in Civil Revision Application No.37/2014. By the impugned judgment, the Civil Revision Application has been allowed. The net result is that the delay of about 7 months and 17 days in filing the appeal before the learned Additional Director of Panchayat stands condoned.

(2.) The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Panchayat, by a judgment and order dated 09/12/2013, had directed the suit structure belonging to the first respondent (second respondent before the Deputy Director) to be demolished and failing which, the Secretary of the Second respondent - Village Panchayat was directed to remove the same. The respondent no.1 sought to challenge the same before the learned Additional Director by filing an appeal which was barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the respondent no.1 filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner had engaged a Lawyer to represent him and the said Lawyer had informed the petitioner that whenever required, he would be called and it is not necessary for the respondent no.1 to appear for every hearing of the case. It was contended that the respondent no.1 relied upon the assurance of his Lawyer. It was contended that the respondent no.1, on receipt of a notice dated 21/08/2014, intimating that demolition of his house was scheduled on 26/08/2014, learnt about the dismissal of the appeal. On enquiry, it was found that the Lawyer did not appear on any date. It was also contended that on account of some serious ailment of his mother, the respondent no.1 could not attend the case personally.

(3.) It was contended that considering the date of knowledge, there was no delay. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner. It was contended that the respondent no.1 had not engaged any Lawyer to represent him and as such, the ground based on failure of the Lawyer to attend the case is not borne out of the record. It was also contended that the respondent no.1 had not given any details of the ailment of his mother and has not produced any medical certificate.