Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 586
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.L.Achliya, J.
Shankar Govinda Sonwane - Appellant
Versus
Pecial Land Acquisition Officer - Respondent
Civil Application No. 453 of 2019
Decided On : 21-01-2021
A.B.Kale, Advocate, A.A.Jagatkar, Advocate
Headnote:
Recall of Order - Delay in Filing Application - The court rejected the application seeking recall of an order due to a delay of 3778 days, finding the reasons for the delay to be false and concocted, and not sufficient to condone the delay. The court also noted that the record and proceedings were reported to be destroyed, further contributing to the rejection of the application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought recall of an order dated 15.04.2008 passed in First Appeal No.857/2006 with condonation of 3778 days delay in filing the application, citing unawareness of the order due to default on the part of the Advocate representing the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the cause assigned for the delay not sufficient to condone the delay of 3778 days, and the reasons assigned to be false, concocted, and afterthought. The court also noted that the record and proceedings were reported to be destroyed, leading to the rejection of the application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the application for recall of the order should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the reasons for the delay were not sufficient and appeared to be false and concocted, and that the delay caused in filing the application did not deserve to be condoned, especially in light of the reported destruction of the record and proceedings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application seeking recall of the order due to the delay of 3778 days, as the reasons for the delay were found to be false and concocted, and the delay was not deserving of condonation, especially in light of the reported destruction of the record and proceedings.
JUDGMENT
1. The applicants-claimants have moved this application seeking recall of the order dated 15.04.2008 passed in First Appeal No.857/2006 with condonation of 3778 days delay in filing the application for the reasons set out in the application.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-claimants and learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent-State.
3. In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was unaware the order of dismissal dated 15.04.2008 passed in appeal due to default on the part of the Advocate representing the appellant. It is submitted that as the counsel engaged by the applicant elevated as a Hon'ble Judge of this Court, she engaged another Advocate and it was learnt that appeal was dismissed on 15.08.2008 due to non-appearance of her Advocate. She has therefore filed the application seeking recall of order and restoration of the First Appeal. It is submitted that if the order is not recalled there is every likelihood that the serious prejudice may cause to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent-State opposed the application. He submits that the cause assigned not sufficient to condone the delay of 3778 days. So also the reasons assigned are false and concocted. It is further submitted that as per the office remark, the record has been destroyed.
5. On due consideration of submissions advanced, I am of the view, that cause assigned not sufficient to condone the delay of 3778 days in filing the application. The reasons assigned appears to be false, concocted, after thought and put-forth to any how get delay of more than 10 years condoned. The applicant has not specifically stated that she has received no communication from the Advocate before his elevation as a Hon'ble Judge of this Court. In all probabilities the intimation must have been given to the applicant on the part of his advocate before accepting the appointment. Now to overcome the delay in filing application putting the blame upon her earlier Advocate. In that view, no case made out to condone the delay and set aside the order of dismissal.
6. The delay caused in filing also not deserves to be condoned as record and proceeding reported to be destroyed as per rules. I am therefore not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
