1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3196 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1932 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4462 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.9060 OF 2002 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, Thane ...Applicant. v. 1.Smt. Adavi Maridi Mahalaxmi & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.C.S.Joshi, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.Sandesh Patil, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Shubhda D. Khot, adv. for the Respondent No.6. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 This application is filed by the original appellant for restoration of the Civil Application No.1932/09 because none was present on behalf of the applicant on that day. It is alleged in the present application that Mr.Nitin Pradhan advocate for the respondent no.6 in the present application was appearing for the applicant in previous application no.4462/02 which was sought to be restored in Civil 2 Application No.1932/09. Infact, Mr.Nitin Pradhan is not a necessary party in the present application nor the allegations made against him or Mr.Garge, advocate are relevant as far as present application is concerned. Mr.C.S.Joshi the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant was himself advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No.1932 of 2009. According to him, his uncle had expired on 13.6.2009, who was admitted in the hospital on the earlier date and, therefore, he himself could not appear on that day. In my opinion, this is a good reason for absence on that day, therefore, order dated 12.6.2009 is hereby recalled and Civil Application No.1932 of 2009 is restored to the file. 2 Present application stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1932 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4462 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.9060 OF 2002 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, Thane ...Applicant. v. 1.Smt. Adavi Maridi Mahalaxmi & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.C.S.Joshi, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.Sandesh Patil, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Shubhda D. Khot, adv. for the Respondent No.6. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Application is restored today to the file. This application was filed for restoration of Civil Application No.4462/02, which was dismissed in default on 6.6.2006 because none appeared for the appellant/applicant on that day in spite of matter being called repeatedly. Civil Application No.4462 of 2002 was filed for condonation of delay in 4 filing the appeal. It is alleged that Mr.Nitin Pradhan advocate, who is made respondent no.6 in the present application was engaged by the applicant/appellant in the said appeal and the civil application no. 4462/02. It is alleged that because of his negligence application was dismissed and not only this he failed to inform Zilla Parishad so that steps could be taken immediately for restoration of that application. Long after that when application was moved by the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5 for recovery of the amount, Zilla Parishad came to know about the same and then this application was filed , which is delayed by 34 months and 10 days. 3 Ms.Shubhda Khot advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6, Mr.Nitin Pradhan denies all the adverse allegations against Mr.Nitin Pradhan. Mr.Sandesh Patil the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5 also denied and takes objection to the present application. According to him, false pleas have been taken by the Zilla Parishad not only in this application but also in the appeal and, therefore, this application should not be entertained and needs to be rejected. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that huge amount is involved in the appeal, which has been filed against the award passed by the MACT. According to Zilla Parishad, it was fake claim and 5 the concerned vehicle was not even involved in the accident. In view of this and the fact that Zilla Parishad is a public body, it will not be in the interest of justice to reject this application merely because of delay. At the same time, I refrain myself from passing any remarks about the conduct of the respondent no.6 Mr.Nitin Pradhan in this controversy. If really there was deficiency in his service as a lawyer towards his clients, applicants can take any action against him either before the Bar Council or before the consumer forum as may be available under the law. 4 Taking into consideration facts and circumstances and particularly, consequences of not allowing this application, I find that the delay needs to be condoned and the civil application no.4462 of 2002 should be restored to the file. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 6 Application stands disposed off. (J.H.Bhatia, J.) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4462 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.9060 OF 2002 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, Thane ...Applicant. v. 1.Smt. Adavi Maridi Mahalaxmi & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.C.S.Joshi, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.Sandesh Patil, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Shubhda D. Khot, adv. for the Respondent No.6. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 It is contended that after receipt of the judgment and order, due to official work during election duty as well as receipt of the certified copy of the evidence, record and proceedings, delay has been caused while the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant contends that delay was caused because after receipt of the copy of the judgment , it requires consideration and approval of the Zilla Parishad to prefer an 7 appeal. However, no such reasons are given in the application. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application. The learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement at bar that during the relevant period, Mr.Nitin Pradhan advocate was engaged by the appellant/applicant and this application was also drafted by him. According to him, Mr.Nitin Pradhan has not returned brief and the relevant papers and, therefore, he is unable to explain the reasons. Incidentally Mr.Nitin Pradhan has been made respondent in the subsequent proceedings and today he is represented by Ms.Shubhda Khot, who is present before the Court. Therefore, Mr. Joshi the learned counsel for the applicant states that he will address letter to Mr.Nitin Pradhan to return brief and all the papers and if such letter is addressed to Mr.Nitin Pradhan,he shall return all the papers, which he may be having within one week thereafter. The applicant/appellant shall file fresh affidavit about reasons of delay. 3 S.O. 3 weeks. (J.H.Bhatia, J.) 8