LINDA DSOUZA E FERNANDESSOUZA Vs. LUIS ANTONIO ROMUALDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants who are the original petitioners are seeking a review of the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by this Court pursuant to which the petition was allowed and the impugned order therein which failed to assign sufficient reasons was quashed and set aside with a direction to the First Appellate Court to expedite the hearing in the matter.

(2.) Heard Shri Sagar Dhargalkar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant who submitted that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by this Court inasmuch as by the passing of the order under review, the applicant is left to face a fait accompli situation unlike the position had the Court to remand the matter to the District Court for a fresh hearing in which event the applicants would have got an opportunity to argue the case afresh and the learned District Judge could have passed a reasoned order. The judgment under review is therefore required to be reviewed and the matter is required to be remanded to the learned District Court for a fresh hearing on the stay application. It was further his contention that there was an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court had placed reliance in the judgment in Bhagwan s/o. Ganpatrao Ghodsay vs. Kachrulal s/o. Bastimal Samdariya, 1987 2 BCR 153 to a limited extent without looking at the other part of the judgment which required that the legislative intent of the right of appeal created by Section 96 should be advanced and the purpose was not to frustrate the right of appeal itself but to regulate it in such a manner that the courts consider condonation of delay before admission of appeals.

(3.) The judgment passed by this Court in Shaikh Ibrahim Janmohammad vs. Tekchand alias Ravindra Fakirchand Rathod, 1988 2 BCR 436 referred to in Bhagwan Ghodsay (supra) held that the Civil Procedure Code had to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice. In case a decree was allowed to be executed before deciding the application for the condonation of delay and also before hearing under Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment debtor would be put to a great loss and inconvenience in case later on the courts condoned the delay and also admits the appeal on hearing under Rule 11. The judgment passed by this Court dated 24.08.2018 had therefore to be reviewed and the matter remanded to the First Appellate Court to afford a fresh round of hearing to the applicants.