ANTONIO FRANCISCO DE SILVA Vs. BEATRIZ NORONHA CABRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner questions the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa dated 5.7.2004 by which the respondent's application for restoration of his revision application has been allowed after condoning the delay of 140 days.

(2.) THE respondent - Landlord had preferred a revision which was pending before the Administrative Tribunal Goa. On 11.12.2002, the Advocate was to remain present for filing the written submission. He, however, did not attend the Tribunal on that day and the Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the revision in default. The Advocate accepted that he remained absent on that day. In the application for restoration filed by the respondent, the circumstances in which the matter was dismissed in default are set out. Further all the circumstances in which the application could not have been filed within time have also been set out. In short, the reason for delay given by the respondent was that in the first half of year 2002 when the matter was dismissed there was no permanent judge in the Tribunal and in November 2002, the respondent was informed that a Judge was appointed and one hearing had taken place and that the second hearing was fixed in second week of December on which day written submission would be filed. Then thereafter, the applicant who had duly instructed the Advocate did not hear the matter till he received the notice from the Talathi in the second week of April 2002 that the names of the applicant tenant has been entered as occupant and, therefore, the application for restoration was being moved. It is settled law that the litigants should not be made to suffer on account of fault of his Advocate. The application for restoration was accompanied by affidavits of two Advocates in support of the circumstances in which the matter was dismissed as well as in which the application for restoration was presented after the delay of about 140 days. Having regard to these circumstances, the Tribunal considered the application for restoration as also considered the question whether the application for restoration should be granted and also whether there was sufficient cause for not preferring the application in time. The Tribunal came to a specific conclusion that the respondents had no knowledge of the dismissal of the revision and in the circumstances, there was no negligence on their part in moving for restoration application. He, therefore, allowed the application for restoration by specifically condoning the delay.

(3.) IN the present case the respondent applied for restoration of his revision which was dismissed in default. In the application he clearly stated the circumstances in which the revision was dismissed in default and the circumstances because of which he could not file the application within the time prescribed by law. The Tribunal also enquired into and applied its mind to the existence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay and came to the conclusion that such sufficient cause existed and made a specific order for condonation of delay. In such situation merely because the prayer for condonation was not made in writing, it cannot be said that there was no application for condonation of delay and the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Indeed, it is settled law that the Court must pay heed to the substance of the matter and not merely to the form or technicalities of procedure.