Bombay High Court
Pushpam Khushalrao Limje And Others vs Smt. Girjabai Keshav Waghade And Others on 27 August, 2019
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WP 3717/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3717/2016
1. Pushpam Khushalrao Limje,
Aged about 39 years, Occupation - Service,
Resident of Indira Gandhi Ward,
Near Bajaj Primary School, Bhandara.
2. Manoj Purushottam Ambarwele,
Aged about 39 years, Occupation - Private,
R/o 51, Shriram Wadi, Ayodhya Nagar,
Nagpur. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
1. Girijabai Keshav Waghade,
Aged - Major, Occupation - Household.
2. Tulsiram Keshav Waghade,
Aged - Major, Occupation - Household.
3. Shalik Keshav Waghade,
Aged- Major, Occupation - Household.
4. Janba Keshav Waghade,
Aged - Major, Occupation - Agriculturist.
All Nos.1 to 4 R/o Navarmari, Post Dongargao,
Tahsil and District Nagpur.
5. Sapna Keshav Choudhary,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation - Nil,
Resident of Tiranga Chowk,
Anand Nagar, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.A. Choube, Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, counsel for petitioner.
Shri S.M. Nafde, counsel for respondent no.5.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 27ND AUGUST, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Heard finally considering the short issue involved. ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2019 21:44:50 :::
WP 3717/16 2 Judgment
2. The petitioners who had sought to intervene in Regular Civil Appeal No.339 of 2005 are aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court on 08.01.2016 refusing to condone the delay in filing a review application.
3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit for declaration that the sale-deed dated 15.06.1996 was a bogus document and hence it was liable to be cancelled. This suit filed against the respondent no.5 came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 09.07.2014. The original plaintiffs filed an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the present petitioners filed an application under provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') below Exhibit 73. They prayed that they be added as appellants in that appeal. A reply was filed by the original appellants opposing the said application. Reply was also filed by the original defendant. In the meanwhile, the parties to the appeal gave a joint pursis on 30.09.2014 stating therein that the proceedings be referred for mediation as there was a likelihood of the dispute being settled. The Appellate Court on 30.09.2014 passed an order that the request for referring the matter for mediation would be entertained after deciding the application that was moved under provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code. Despite that it appears that on 13.12.2014, the parties to the appeal settled the dispute ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2019 21:44:50 ::: WP 3717/16 3 Judgment before the Lok-Adalat. The Appellate Court directed a decree to be drawn as per its order dated 15.12.2014. The petitioners herein therefore filed an application for review alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court refused to condone the delay and hence that order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Heard Shri A.A. Choube, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.M. Nafde, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. It is not in dispute that on the application for intervention, the Appellate Court on 30.09.2014 had directed that after said application would be adjudicated, the proceedings would be referred for mediation. Despite that proceedings were sent to the Lok-Adalat which on 13.12.2014 recorded the settlement between the parties. It is in the light of these developments that the application for review alongwith an application for condoning the delay came to be moved. The petitioners are justified in relying upon the earlier order passed by the Appellate Court referring the proceedings for being placed before the Lok-Adalat. They were therefore not aware that on 15.12.2014, the dispute stood settled. In this backdrop therefore, the delay was liable to be condoned. This would therefore enable the Appellate Court to entertain the review application on its own merits.
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2019 21:44:50 :::
WP 3717/16 4 Judgment
5. Accordingly, the order passed on 08.01.2016 in M.C.A. No.190 of 2015 is set aside. The delay in filing the review application stands condoned. The review application be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
6. The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2019 21:44:50 :::