8 cao 315-2022.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 315/2022 WITH

MCA ST. NO. 6559/2022

Ravikant Vitthalrao Ragit Vs.

Pundlik Gulabrao Wanjari and others

IN

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (CRA) NO. 116/2018

Pundlik Gulabrao Wanjari and others Vs.

Kishor Shesraoji Asare

- - - - - - - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders or directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicant

Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent in CRA No. 116/2018

Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

DATE : 19/10/2022

This is an application for condonation of delay. It

appears that the proposed intervenor in civil revision

Application No.116/2018 filed review application along

with application for condonation of delay. It is submitted

that there is a delay of 21 days in filing application for

review. The delay is caused in obtaining certified copy and

collecting record from earlier Counsel. It is the contention

of the applicant that reasons stated in paragraph No.5 of

the review application be read along with the contents in

the application for condonation of delay.

2.

I have gone through the contents of review

application also. The matter was settled by the parties by

8 cao 315-2022.odt

2

way of compromise. Though the intervention application

was listed, nobody came up to represent the intervenor.

Moreover, the contention of intervenor is that he is the

owner of the property in question as he is having some

revenue records. However, these rights of the intervenor

cannot be decided in the revision. He has an independent

remedy available as per the provisions of law. It is

submitted by intervenor that this material fact that the

intervention application was listed on the day of disposal

of the civil revision, is not disclosed by the applicant.

3.

It is the contention of the applicant that though

intervention application was listed, it was not pointed out

by the revision applicant or respondent that such an

application is pending. In my opinion, it is unreasonable

expectation from the Counsel for revision applicant or

respondent when it is his application for intervention and

he was to be diligent to attend.

4.

In view thereof, the applicants have not placed

on record the clear facts. As stated earlier intervenor have

no right to seek any declaration from this Court. He has

only right to be heard. However, as matter was settled

between the parties and intervenor was absent on the day

of disposal, there is no case made out to condone the

delay. As such, the application is dismissed.

(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Jayashree..

Signed By:JAYASHREE SHARAD

SHINGNE

Signing Date:21.10.2022 17:56