1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8799 OF 2007 Shivaji Dattu Mang @ Nagarpole. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Govinda Santu Kumbhar since deceased through L.Rs & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.D.V.Sutar for petitioner in both the Petitions. Mrs.J.P.Akolkar for Respondent Nos. 1(b),1(c), (d),1(e), 2(a), 2(b) & 2(c). Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM: A.A.SAYED,J CORAM: A.A.SAYED,J CORAM: A.A.SAYED,J DATE : JUNE 12, 2008. DATE : JUNE 12, 2008. DATE : JUNE 12, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. This Petition is directed against the Order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Kolhapur, whereby the application of the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 1964 days in preferring an appeal against the Decree dated 30th May, 1994 passed in Regular Civil Suit, came to be rejected. 2. A common Judgment and Order is passed in 3 different suits and 3 different Appeals have been preferred by the Petitioner therefrom. The above Writ Petition arises from rejection of Application of condonation of delay in one of the said 3 Appeals. 2 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner however, has pointed another Order dated 13th July, 2007, wherein another Judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction, on an application for the condonation of delay in preferring one of the Appeals out of the aforesaid three Appeals against the common Judgment and Order, has condoned the delay of the same number of days in filing appeal by imposing costs of Rs.3,000/-. The facts in relation to the Application for condonation of delay in the present case are no different. This Order dated 13th July, 2007, as it appears, was not brought to the notice of the learned Trial Judge, who has passed the impugned order rejecting the Application for condonation of delay. There is, however, no explanation as to why this Order dated 13th July 2007 was not pointed out to the learned Judge who has passed the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the impugned order and vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that here is a case, which is entirely false and there is gross negligence, as is discussed in the impugned order and urged that the petition be rejected with costs. 3 5. I am informed that against the Order dated 13th July, 2007, no appeal has been filed challenging the same and this Order has attained finality. In my view there cannot be any inconsistency in the orders in the application for condonation of delay in preferring Appeals, which arise from a common Judgment and Order on the same facts and circumstances. Since there is no explanation, as to why the Order dated 13th July, 2007 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, who has passed the impugned order, in my view the Petitioner should be put to heavy costs for having let inconsistent orders being passed and not being diligent enough in bringing the order dated 13th July, 2007 to the notice of the learned Judge, who has passed the impugned Order. Though I am not completely satisfied with the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay, however, to avoid any inconsistency in the orders, I am inclined to allow the application, subject to heavy costs being imposed upon the petitioner. In my view, this is a fit case where the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is required to be exercised so as to prevent inconsistent orders being passed. 4 6. The impugned order is therefore, set aside with costs quantified at Rs.7,500/- to be deposited by the Petitioner in the trial Court within 3 weeks. Liberty to the Respondents to withdraw the same. Costs will be condition precedent to the Appeal being numbered. 7. Writ Petition is allowed in terms above and is disposed of. (A.A.SAYED,J) (A.A.SAYED,J) (A.A.SAYED,J)