CHELARAM ALUMAL PIDWANI Vs. SURESH PAROMANAND SAVALANI CHINCHRIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In revision, the petitioner-opposite party No. 1 has filed application seeking condonation of 1128 days' delay in filing the petition. Grounds on which delay is sought to be condoned have been set out in para No. 2 as under :

(2.) Revision has been filed against the order dated 7.12.1999 of State Commission dismissing Appeal No. 2289 of 1998 filed by the petitioner and Appeal No. 391 of 1999 preferred by the respondent against the order of District Forum dated 7.9.1998 whereby petitioner was ordered to execute sale deed and handover possession of the shop and flat after receiving amount of Rs. 4,21,500/-, from the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Atul Sharma for petitioner whom we have heard on the application seeking condonation of delay, invited our attention to the grounds as set out in para No. 2 of the application in addition to the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing C.W.P. No. 6874 of 2002 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On enquiry, Mr. Sharma stated that Suit No. 210 of 2000 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur referred to as S/n (a) in para 2 of the application, is for declaration that the order dated 7.9.1998 passed by District Forum is without jurisdiction and this suit is still pending. It was pointed out that in the suit the petitioner filed application for grant of certain ad-interim reliefs which was declined by the Civil Judge and the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and High Court of Judicature at Bombay referred to in said para No. 2, arise out of the order passed by the Civil Judge declining to grant ad-interim reliefs to the petitioner. In terms of the said order dated 10.12.2002, the High Court refused to entertain petition under Article 227 for the reasons noted in the order itself which need not be referred here. In our view, the petitioner cannot assail the correctness of aforesaid order of District Forum dated 7.9.1998, simultaneously in Suit No. 219 of 2000 and present revision and the grounds noticed above do not disclose sufficient cause to condone the said inordinate delay in filing revision petition. Application is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit. Revision petition too is dismissed being barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.