1 WP 228 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2011 Anand Manohar (since deceased through LRs) Mahendra Anant Rodrigues and Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Shah Alam Mohamed Nawab and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.S.W. Kulkarni for Petitioners Mr.D.C. Mullaji for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3rd May, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondents. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court who was pleased to dismiss the application for fixation of standard rent. By order dated 1st December,2001 and which order was confirmed by the Appellant Bench of the Small Causes Court in revision on 16th October, 2008. 3. Brief facts are that a standard rent application was filed in September, 1996. Initially, application for interim relief was filed. The said application was 2 WP 228 of 2011 dismissed in 1998. Thereafter, two civil applications seeking similar reliefs were filed. Those application were also dismissed. Standard rent application was itself dismissed on 5th April, 2001. An application for restoration was filed after 8 months on 14th August, 2002. The Trial Court dismissed this application for restoration by its judgment and order dated 20th June, 2003. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the standard rent application was tagged along with 10 other matters and his application was separated from the main group. It is his case that his advocate was under the impression that his application for fixation of standard rent being tagged with the other groups and since dates were given in the said matter, he came to know about dismissal of his application in July, 2001. The learned counsel for the Petitioners urged that it was an inadvertent error and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner herein in pursuing the said application. He invited my attention to the application which was filed and the affidavit in reply which was filed by the Respondents herein. He submitted that the fact that the standard rent application was initially tagged along with the group of 3 WP 228 of 2011 other 10 applications, has not been denied by the Respondents. It is submitted that, therefore, both the Courts ought to have condoned the delay which was caused inadvertently. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. He submitted that the Petitioners herein did not pursue the application diligently. His three applications for interim releifs were rejected from time to time. The first application was rejected on 15th September, 1998. The second application was rejected on 9th July, 2001. This application was also dismissed since the applicant did not take steps to serve the notice. Since no other notice was pending in the standard rent application, the matter was separated from the main group since interim applications were pending in the said matter. 6. In my view, the Trial Court has rightly held that the contention of the Petitioners that they were not aware about the dates of R.A.B. in standard rent application, cannot be accepted as a true statement. The Trial court has also rightly held that the negligence on the part of the applicant was apparent from the record and proceedings. The Trial court dismissed his application 4 WP 228 of 2011 for restoration by judgment and order dated 21st June, 2002. Initially an appeal was filed against this order which was also dismissed and, thereafter, revision application was filed in 2005 which was also dismissed in 2008 and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed on 23rd December, 2010. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in my view, it will not be possible to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. Writ Petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)