JUDGMENT :

1. These seven writ petitions are challenging the common judgment and order dated 1st July 1999 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Thane in Misc. Application nos. 51 of 1998 to 57 of 1998. The Miscellaneous Applications were filed before the District Court, Thane, for condoning the delay in filing the Appeals.

FACTS :

2. The Petitioner corporation re-assess the property of the Respondent for the purpose of property tax on the basis of Rateable Value and issued bills, to the Respondent/Assessee. The respondent/Assessee challenged the rateable value by filing seven appeals viz. Municipal Appeal Nos. 11 of 1989 to 17 of 1989, being the assessment for seven years for the property of the Assessee which were filed under Section 406 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred as “the Corporation Act” .

3. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, heard all these Appeals together and by his common judgment and order dated 26th April 1991, allowed the Appeals of the Respondent/Assessee.

4. The Municipal Corporation being dissatisfied, by the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, preferred appeals under Section 411 of the Corporation Act, before the District Judge, Thane. However, as there was delay in filing the Appeals, Miscellaneous Applications for condoning the delay were preferred by the Municipal Corporation. It was the case of the Municipal Corporation in the Misc. Application that the delay was caused as their officers were under the impression that Appeals have already being filed. It is further stated in the delay application that delay was caused bonafidely and there is sufficient cause for not preferring appeals within limitation. The Respondent/Assessee opposed the delay condonation application and stated that the application for obtaining certified copy of impugned order was made by the Municipal Corporation only after 6 years and 8 months, for which there is no whisper in the application. Therefore, the delay should not be condoned. It was further stated that the application is made very casually and no dates are specifically mentioned neither the name of counsels due to whom the delay was caused has been mention. It is further stated that the corporation was absolutely not diligent. The learned District Judge heard all seven Misc. Applications and by common judgment and order dated 1st July 1999, rejected the Misc. Applications for condonation of delay. The present Writ Petitions challenges the said Judgment and Order dated 1st July 1999 passed by the District Judge, Thane.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSELS:

5. Mr. Bubna, the learned Counsel for the corporation submitted that the delay was caused as the officer were under the impression that the appeals have already been filed. He further pleaded that lenient view should be taken as the appeals were filed by a government body and there was a communication gap between the applicant and his counsel. It was further stated that the delay was caused beyond the control of corporation.

5.1. Mr. Vakil, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Assessee stated that no explanation is given for the delay to be condoned, as per section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further emphasis that separate treatment should not be given to the corporation as compared to a private litigant coming to the court. The learned advocate for the respondent to buttress his submissions relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court viz. Esha Bhattacharjee v/s. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649 and the judgment of Collector and Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. v/s. Katiji and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353. Mr. Vakil submitted that the ratio laid down by Supreme Court, in both these judgments squarely applies to the present matter, hence the Writ Petitions should be dismissed with costs.

ANALYSIS :

6 I have heard the submissions of both the counsels and with their assistance I have gone through