AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1597 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.6782 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8826 OF 2004 Tata Metaliks Limited. ... Applicant Vs. Arti Durgaram Gavandi & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.V. Bukhari i/b Mr. B.V. Bukhari for the applicant. Mr. Mayuresh Nagale with Mr. V.M. Parkar for respondent 1. Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent 4. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATED : 2ND JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Writ Petition No.8826 of 2004 was disposed of by us on 6/10/2008. The applicant who is respondent 1 in the writ petition has filed the instant review petition praying that the judgment and order dated 6/10/2008 be reviewed. There is 129 days' delay in filing the review AJN 2 petition. In this civil application, the applicant has prayed that the said delay be condoned. 2. In the civil application, it is, inter alia, stated that the 1st respondent herein i.e. the original petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking reliefs against Messrs Usha Ispat Limited. During the pendency of the hearing of the writ petition, Civil Application No.426 of 2006 was preferred by Messrs Usha Ispat Limited on 10/2/2006 for substitution of the applicant in place of Messrs Usha Ispat Limited. According to the applicant, a copy of the civil application was not served upon the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could not contest the civil application. As a result, an ex-parte order dated 17/2/2006 was passed against the applicant substituting it as the applicant in place of Messrs Usha Ispat Limited. It is further stated that consequently, when the writ petition was heard, the applicant was not represented. No one appeared for the applicant and the petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 6/10/2008. AJN 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was unaware of this court's judgment. It was communicated to the applicant by counsel for the original petitioner by his letter dated 14/10/2008. Thereafter, the applicant sent a reply to the said letter on 20/10/2008. The applicant consulted its lawyers and then filed the review petition. It is stated in the civil application that time was spent in discussing the matter with the concerned officers and taking legal advise. It is further stated that the Corporate Office of the applicant is situated at Kolkatta and, therefore, the matter had to be referred to the Kolkatta Office. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay in filing the review petition is caused due to the abovementioned circumstances which were beyond the control of the applicant. Counsel submitted that sufficient cause is made out by the applicant to condone the delay and, hence, the delay may be condoned. AJN 4 4. Learned counsel for the original petitioner, however, strenuously opposed the condonation of delay. 5. We find no reason to reject the application for condonation of delay. In our opinion, the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The explanation offered by the applicant in the application is acceptable. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. I.L.L.J. 1987 SC 500 where the Supreme Court has observed that while considering the application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted. The Supreme Court gave the following reasons why liberal approach should be adopted. “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As AJN 5 against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a Cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Whey not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” 6. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in AJN 6 State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Ors. 1996 II CLR 504. 7. In the circumstances of the case and in the light of the above judgments, we condone the delay. The civil application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]