- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8718 OF 2006 Purushottam Dayabhai Patel, ) since deceased through his ) legal heirs : ) ) 1. Smt.Bhagwantiben Purushottam ) Patel, Age about 44 years, ) Occupation - Household, ) residing at Manik Chowk, Chakan,) Taluka Khed, District - Pune. ) 2. Shri Ashwin Purushottam Patel, ) Age about 25 years, ) Occupation - Service, ) Presently residing at ) Plot No.275/9, Laxmi Saw Mill, ) New Timber Market, Mysure Road, ) Banglore. ) Through their Constituted Power of ) Attorney Holder, ) Shri Sandeep Vasant Deshmukh, ) Age about 30 years, ) Occupation - Service, Residing at ) Manik Chowk, Chakan, Taluka - Khed, ) District - Pune. )..Petitioners (Org.Applicants/ Defendants ) Vs. 1. Shri Vijay Popatlal Shaha, ) Age about 46 years, ) Occupation - Business, ) residing at Manik Chowk, ) Chakan, Taluka - Khed, ) District - Pune. ) 2. Shri Shripad Krushnaji Joshi, ) Age about 76 years, ) Occupation - Retired, residing ) at Room No.99, Latif Building, ) Dadar, Bombay - 44. )..Respondents - 2 - (Org.Opponents/ Plaintiffs) - Shri G.S.Godbole for the Petitioners. Shri Sugandh B.Deshmukh for the Respondents. -- CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J DATED : 13TH MARCH, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By an order dated 4th July, 2007, this Court directed that the writ petition shall be decided finally at an admission stage. Accordingly, I have taken up the writ petition for final hearing. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents. The suit filed by the respondents was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Court for challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The said appeal was admitted. On 9th June, 2006 the said appeal was dismissed in default as the petitioners and their advocate were absent. On 13th September, 2006, an application was made by the petitioners before the District Court for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal and for restoration thereof. As there was a delay in - 3 - applying for restoration, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioners. The said application was contested by the respondents. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16th October, 2006, the application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Appellate Court. That is the order which is impugned in this petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. He pointed out that the petitioners had engaged an advocate in the appeal and the appeal was dismissed in default as the said advocate did not appear in the matter. He pointed out that after it was brought to the notice of the said advocate that the appeal was dismissed, he assured the petitioners that he will obtain the certified copy of the order. He further pointed out that the said advocate died on 3rd August, 2006. He, therefore, submitted that a sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. 3. The learned advocate for the respondents opposed the petition by pointing out that the petitioners were aware of the dismissal of the appeal, - 4 - and therefore, they themselves could have taken immediate steps for applying for restoration of the appeal. He submitted that, apart from the fact that there was no explanation for condonation of delay, the petitioners were negligent. He also pointed out that the petitioners have no subsisting interest in the suit property, and therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the decree of trial court. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also perused the Roznama maintained by the District Court. It is an admitted position that the petitioners had engaged the services of an advocate to represent them in an appeal. There was no direction issued by the Appellate Court to the petitioners to personally remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal. Perusal of the Roznama shows that on 10th March, 2006, 13th March, 2006, 29th March, 2006 and on 10th April, 2006, the advocate for the petitioners was present before the Appellate Court. Only on 9th June, 2006 the advocate for the petitioners was absent. 5. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have stated that after 19th April, - 5 - 2006, an inquiry was made in the office of their advocate regarding the next date fixed in the appeal. The petitioners have stated that the advocate informed them that the next date was fixed as 10th June, 2006. After 10th June, 2006, the petitioners inquired in the office of their advocate. At that time, the advocate informed them that though the Court had fixed the appeal on 9th June, 2006, he was under a mistaken impression that the appeal was fixed on 10th June, 2006. The advocate disclosed to the petitioners that on 9th June, 2006, he did not attend the Court, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed in default. Accordingly, the petitioners’ advocate informed them that after the certified copies of the order were ready, he will inform the petitioners and thereafter an application for restoration could be made. The petitioners have disclosed that the said advocate died on 3rd August, 2006. It is pointed out that thereafter the office of the advocate was closed and the petitioners obtained certified copies and other papers of the appeal by contacting a junior colleague of their deceased advocate. The appeal was dismissed on 9th June, 2006 and the application for condonation of delay along with the application for restoration of the appeal was filed on 13th September, 2006. - 6 - 6. This is not a case where there was any negligence on the part of the petitioners. As pointed out earlier, their advocate was consistently present on the earlier four dates fixed in the appeal. The said advocate died on 3rd August, 2006. While passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. He ought to have taken a liberal view in the matter in view of the facts pleaded in the application and condoned the delay. Hence, the delay deserves to be condoned. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents states that instead of prolonging the matter further, even the appeal may be restored and the District Court be directed to decide the appeal in a time bound schedule. The said suggestion is reasonable. 8. Hence, I pass the following order. 1. The impugned judgment and order dated 16th October, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. 2. Misc.Civil Application No.800 of 2006 is allowed. - 7 - 3. Civil Appeal No.335 of 2005 is restored to the file. 4. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Pune on 15th April, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. for fixing the schedule of hearing of the appeal. 5. The learned Principal District Judge, Pune, may himself hear the appeal or may transfer it to any other District Judge as per his administrative convenience. 6. It is made clear that no separate notice of the appeal will be issued to the parties. 7. The appeal shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st August, 2008. 8. All the contentions of the parties in - 8 - the pending appeal are expressly kept open. 9. The rule is partly made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. 10. The learned Principal District Judge, Pune, and the parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( ABHAY S. OKA, J )