Failure to adhere to the provisions of law and failure to comply with court orders can result in the rejection of applications and dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Anil L. Pansare, J - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. The petitioner-Municipal Council, Chikhli, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 5th December, 2019 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, below Exhs 87 and 88 in Special Civil Suit No. 3/2016. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected both the applications filed by the petitioner.

3. It so happened that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,19,750/- for carrying out necessary survey for Chikhli town. In response to summons the defendants appeared but failed to file written statement. Accordingly, the suit proceeded without written statement. The respondent who is the plaintiff before the trial Court had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The chief examination was concluded on 06.01.2018. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the order of 'no written statement'. The said Application came to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 7,000/-. The written statement was accordingly taken on record. However, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the respondent and on 15th October 2018, the petitioner sought adjournment to cross-examine the petitioner. However his request came to be rejected. The petitioner therefore partly cross-examined the respondent. It appears that the petitioner's request for adjournments followed thereafter. Ultimately on 1st December, 2019 the application seeking adjournment to cross-examine the respondent came to be dismissed and order of 'no cross-examination' was passed. Thereafter, the respondent closed his evidence on 15.12.2018. The matter was kept for evidence of petitioner, however, the petitioner did not remain present. On 25th April 2019, the petitioner applied for setting aside 'no cross order'. The said Application came to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited forthwith, so also to cross-examine the respondent who was present before the trial Court, It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the said order as well but sought application for extension of time to deposit the costs. On the next date i.e. 27th June 2019, the petitioner filed yet another application seeking extension of time to comply with the order directing it to deposit the costs and to cross-examine the respondent. Similarly, such applications came to be filed thereafter. On 26th June, 2019 the petitioner appears to have filed two applications - one seeking permission to deposit the costs and another seeking condonation of delay to deposit the costs.

4. The said two Applications were opposed by the respondent. The learned Judge of the trial Court by referring to Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure arrived at a conclusion that the delay cannot be condoned. The learned Judge opined that under section 148 of the Code, the Court has discretion to enlarge the period for not more than 30 days. However the party in default has to show bona fides and make out a case for extension. The learned Judge of the trial Court has then recorded as to how the petitioner was given opportunity, firstly to file written statement, which was filed belatedly and thereafter repeatedly giving opportunities to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. Accordingly, the Applications were rejected.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner carries the blame to a certain extent in not depositing the costs in time but not giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent would be too harsh a measure for such failure. Accordingly argued that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner on whatever conditions this court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the order impugned is a well-reasoned order. There is absolutely no reason