LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-86

MAHADEO GOPALA SHINDE Vs. NIVRUTTI SHRIPATI JADHAV

Decided On January 09, 2007
MAHADEO GOPALA SHINDE Appellant
V/S
SOU.GODABAI BALWANT BHOSALE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Satara dated 15th July, 2000 in Mis. Civil Appeal No.89 of 1996.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed suit before the Court of IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara being Regular Civil Suit No.302 of 1986 for declaration that the award passed by the respondent No.8 in respect of the suit land was illegal and null and void and for further relief of possession of the suit land. The suit land has been acquired under Krishna Dam(Dhome) Project under the provisions of Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Affected Persons Act and Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After following necessary procedure, award came to be passed in respect of the said land. Consequent to the award, compensation amount was deposited and possession of the land has been taken over by the authorities. It is this award and subsequent action taken by the authorities made subject matter of the Regular Civil Suit No.302 of 1986 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. In the said suit, Written Statement was filed by the defendants. Amongst others, the suit was opposed on two preliminary grounds. Firstly, that, the same was barred by limitation as the acquisition proceedings were concluded as back as in 1970. The second objection was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and decide the subject matter of the suit.

(3.) Be that as it may, from the record, it appears that the suit was adjourned from time to time at the request of the plaintiffs. Eventually, the Court adjourned hearing of the suit to 17th January, 1991, as last opportunity. On 17th January, 1991, however, request was made on behalf of the plaintiffs for adjournment on the ground that their advocate was busy in some other court. That request came to be rejected by the trial Court by the order on two counts. Firstly because, the suit was kept for hearing and adjournment was granted on the earlier occasion as last indulgence to the plaintiffs. The second reason assigned by the trial Court is that the advocate was busy in some other court cannot be a ground for adjournment of the matter in terms of the provisions of C.P.Code. The Court then proceeded with the hearing of the suit and dismissed the suit by exercising powers under Order 9 Rule 8 of C.P.Code on the same day. Indeed, the plaintiffs filed application for restoration of the suit, which application was moved at 5.45 p.m. on 17th January, 1991. The Court however, rejected that application for reasons recorded in separate order passed on 17th January, 1991.