1 W.P.No.6317/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6317 OF 2011. 1. Venkat S/o Bapurao Solunke, Age 67 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (J), Tq.Nilanga. 2. Rangrao S/o Bapurao Solunke, Age 57 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (J), Tq. Nilanga 3. Pralhad S/o Bapurao Solunke, Age 52 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (j) Tq.Nilanga.... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Revenue Ministry Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.Latur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Divisional Office, Nilanga, Tq.Nilanga, Dist.Latur. 4. The Collector, The Collector Office, Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. 2 W.P.No.6317/11 5. Balaji S/o Dashratha Soldunke, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (J), Tq. Nilanga. 6. Shivaji S/o Dashratha Solunke, Age 62 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (J), Tq. Nilanga. 7. Suryabhan S/o Dashratha Solunke, Age 60 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pimpalwadi (J), Tq. Nilanga. ... Respondents. ... Mr.T.M.Venjane, advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.V.R.Jain, advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 7. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 20.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners filed Revision before 3 W.P.No.6317/11 the MRT against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 28.1.2009, along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Venjane, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners initially filed Writ Petition against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 16.9.2009 with liberty to file Revision and the Revision was filed before the MRT on 12.12.2009. The petitioners had explained the reasons for the delay. The advocate of the applicant thought that the limitation is 90 days for filing Revision and from the disposal of Writ Petition the Revision could be filed within 90 days and so the delay was caused. The MRT has taken a very technical approach. 5. Mr.Jain, learned counsel for the contesting Respondents Nos.5 to 7 vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that no 4 W.P.No.6317/11 reasons are given for condonation of delay. The expression sufficient cause can not be extended/stretched to such an extent that the said expression becomes redundant. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are harassing the Respondents by filing one application after another. 6. It is a trite law that when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub-served. 7. In the present case the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was sought to be assailed before the revenue authorities. Even the MRT has accepted the said explanation but has rejected the application only on the ground that the period from the date of the order of the High Court till the filing of Revision before it, has not been explained. The said period is hardly of 86 days. It can be taken into consideration that the time would be lost in getting copies of the order and instructing another lawyer for filing 5 W.P.No.6317/11 the Revision. So also it was stated that the advocate of the petitioners was under bonafide belief that from the date of the order of the High Court, Revision can be filed within 90 days. 8. Taking into account the above conspectus, I am inclined to condone the delay by setting aside the impugned order but at the same time, the petitioners also deserves to be mulct with costs. 9. In the result, I pass the following order : (i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the delay is condoned on condition that the petitioners pay cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Respondents within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The cost may be either pay directly or may be deposited with the MRT. If the cost is paid/deposited, then the MRT shall register the Revision, if it otherwise complies with all other requirement. 6 W.P.No.6317/11 10. Rule accordingly made absolute. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp6317.11