1 11-cas-557-2003.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.557 OF 2003 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST)NO.10029 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicants V/s. Shri Bansi R. Suryawanshi (since deceased) through his Legal Heirs & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Mhaispurkar, AGP for Applicants. Mr. S. Chogule i/b. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos.2 and 4A. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 This Application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra. Perusal of this Application shows that the entire Application is drafted as if it is an Application for condonation of delay in filing a First Appeal which is also clear from the prayers made in the Civil Application. In fact, in paragraph 3 of the Civil 2 11-cas-557-2003.sxw Application, a reference has been made to the “ Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court.” It is thus clear that without any application of mind and mechanically the contents of a Civil Application which is normally filed in the First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been copied and averments to that effect are made. 3 The learned Advocate for the Applicants is directed to amend at least the prayer clause of the Civil Application so as to correct the record. 4 The reasons given in the Civil Application are vague and there is virtually no explanation for the delay between 3rd September, 2002 till 30th January, 2003. Apart from this, as stated above, the Civil Application contains factually incorrect statements to the effect that the Respondents have received compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, where as the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,000/- being the amount of mesne profits and litigation expenses on account of the litigation arising out the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands To Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 in which the Plaintiff was allegedly wrongfully dispossessed on 12th July, 1985 in collusion with Government Officers. 5 Thus, neither the Application is properly drafted, nor sufficient 3 11-cas-557-2003.sxw reasons are indicated. In such a situation, the normal course would be to dismiss the Civil Application, even though, this Court is liberal in condoning the delay. However, with a view to ensure that the Government should not suffer and the case can be heard on merits at the time of admission and on account of the fact that the duration of delay is only about 80 days; purely by way of indulgence, Civil Application is allowed, subject to the condition of payment of Rs.12,000/- as costs to the Respondent No.5- Karbhari Niphade being the original Plaintiff. The payment of costs will be a condition precedent and costs shall be paid within seven weeks, failing which, Civil Application will stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. 6 The costs may either be paid to the Advocate for the Respondent No.5 by way of crossed cheque account payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order or be deposited in this Court with the praecipe and intimation to the Advocate for the Respondent No.5 within seven weeks and that will be treated as sufficient compliance. 7 After the cost is paid as aforesaid, office to examine the Second Appeal and after removing all office objections, the Second Appeal shall be listed for admission as per C.M.I.S. Programme. 4 11-cas-557-2003.sxw 8 The costs awarded hereby shall be costs thrown in, irrespective of final out come of the Appeal and even if Appellants succeed in the Appeal, the Applicants will not be entitled to claim any refund in respect of the said costs. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)