1. 1. The Applicants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1984 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Vaijapur for declaration of title and injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed in default on 6th November, 1993 and, therefore, an application for restoration came to be filed belatedly on 6th June, 1994 along with an application for condonation of delay which came to be listed as M.A.R.J.I. No. 12 of 1994. This application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application came to be rejected by the Court below on 21st September, 1995 and the same order has been challenged in this revision which was admitted on 8th January, 1997 and stay to the proceedings continued all along.

2. 2. On 25th June, 2003 the learned Single Judge of this Court recorded his disagreement with the view earlier taken by another Single Bench in the case of Chandrakant v. M.K. Associates, 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 1011 and, therefore, took a view that a revision application against rejection of an application for condonation of delay appear to be entertainable in view of

the opening part of Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code, for short) subject to the limitations stated in the said order. The learned Single Judge, therefore, framed the following issue for reference to a larger bench and after this revision application was placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice a reference has been made to us for decision.

"Whether the revision petition against rejection of

application for condonation of the delay in institution

of proceedings passed by subordinate Courts are

maintainable by virtue of Section 115(1), in view of

the fact that rejection of such application has an effect

of "case decided" i.e. disposal of proceedings as time-

barred by a finding on the issue of limitation."

1. 3. Shri Patni, the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Gangapurwala, the learned amicus curiae submitted that the view taken by this Court in the case of Chandrakant (supra) deserve reconsideration and an order rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed in an appeal or a restoration application is an order of final nature and hence such an order can be challenged in a revision application under Section 115 of the Code. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand supported the view taken by this Court in Chandrakants case (supra) and submitted that the language of the amended Section 115 of the Code is very specific and there is no ambiguity so as to doubt the view pronounced in Chandrakants case (supra).

.4. In Chandrakants case (supra) Civil Miscellaneous Application was filed for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the District Court and the same application came to be rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that good and sufficient reasons were not made out to

.condone the delay. The said order rejecting the application for condonation of delay came to be challenged by filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code. By order dated 3rd December, 2002 it was held that the revision was maintainable notwithstanding the amendments in Section 115 of the Code. However, before the judgment was signed it was pointed out to the Court that the view taken was required to be reconsidered and accordingly by the judgment (supra) it was held that (a) the consequence of dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in law is one of disposing of the appeal as time-barred and, therefore, one passed in appeal itself; (b) revision application for challenging an order dismissing the application for condonation of delay moved in an appeal is not tenable under the amended Section 115 of the Code.

2. 5. In the case at hand, the application for condonation of delay was moved in an application for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed and if this application was allowed the trial Court was required to decide the re