1 c.a.6343.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6343 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 10172 OF 2011 1. Bhausaheb S/o Hiraman Mokale Age : 45 Years, Occup.: Service, R/o Harsool, Aurangabad. 2. Gautam S/o Hiraman Mokale, Age : 40 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Harsool, Aurangabad. 3. Anna S/o Hiraman Mokale, Age 38 Years, Occup.: Agril., R/o Harsool, Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS. (Ori.Defendants in Counter claim) VERSUS Laxman Shankar Gaikwad, Age : 65 Years, Occup. Pensioner, R/o Kile Arak, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT (Ori. Plaintiff in Counter Claim) ... Mr.P.F.Patni,Advocate for Applicants. Mr.A.D.Kasliwal,Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. RESERVED ON : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 DELIVERED ON : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 2 c.a.6343.11 JUDGMENT : . This Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay, in filing the Appeal From Order against the judgment and decree, passed by the learned District Judge-9, Aurangabad in R.C.S.No. 241 of 2005. 2. It is stated in the application that, after passing of the judgment and decree by the lower appellate Court, the advocate for the applicants- appellants was under impression that he has filed an application for certified copies of the Judgment and decree, and the copies are awaited. However, after arrival of the applicant No.3 for collecting the certified copies, the Advocate went to the copying section for collecting the copies, it was revealed that the application was not at all filed. . It is further contended that, thereafter, immediately the applicants filed the copy 3 c.a.6343.11 application for obtaining the certified copies, and got immediately certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree. After obtaining the certified copies of the Judgment and decree, the same was handed over to the undersigned advocate and for preparation of the Appeal and other formalities some time was required, as such, the delay is caused in filing the Appeal. . It is further contended that, the delay is of 12 days in filing the appeal. The delay is accidental and unintentional. In the above circumstances, the delay in filing the Appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. A valuable rights in respect of immovable property is involved in the Appeal. 3. The application for condonation of delay was heard by this Court on 9th September, 2011. This Court granted liberty to the applicants-appellants to file further affidavit in continuation of the Civil Application No. 6343 of 2011 and to explain 4 c.a.6343.11 the delay properly. The applicants-appellants herein filed rejoinder affidavit on 13.09.2011. . In para No.2 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is contended that, advocate of the applicants- appellants was under impression that he has filed an application for getting the certified copies of the judgment and decree, under challenge. When the applicant reached for collecting the copies on 24.03.2011, which is last day for filing the Appeal, challenging the said judgment and decree. It was revealed that, the application for getting the certified copies was not filed. . It is further contended that, the applicant No.3 approached to their advocate after 2.30 p.m on that day. Immediately, on next day, their advocate filed an application for getting the certified copies of the judgment and decree under challenge i.e on 25.03.2011. It is further contended that, the certified copies were received on 01.04.2011. Thereafter, after consulting with 5 c.a.6343.11 their advocate, the papers were handed over to advocate Mr. Patni for preparation of Appeal from Order and for filing the same. The papers were handed over to their advocate on 04.04.2011, as 2nd April and 3rd April being holidays. It is further contended that after handing over the papers to their advocate, he required some time for preparation of Appeal, and therefore, some delay was caused. Appeal From Order filed on 14.03.2011, which is delayed by 12 days, and therefore, separate application for condonation of delay is filed. 4. Respondent No.1 herein has filed affidavit in-reply to the application for condonation of delay on 19.09.2011. It is stated in the said affidavit in-reply that, the lower Appellate Court decided the appeal vide judgment an decree dated 24.12.2010, and thereby, set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.C.S.No. 146 of 2002 dated 20.07.2005 and remanded the matter to lower Court. The lower Appellate Court was pleased to direct 6 c.a.6343.11 the parties to appear before the lower Court on 27.01.2011. The deponent i.e. respondent No.2 herein reported appearance before the lower Court on 27.01.2011. The applicants herein have reported their appearance before the lower Court on 17.02.2011, by filing pursis at Exhibit 100, under the signature of present applicant No.3 and their advocate. 5. It is further stated in para No.4 of the reply that, on 24.01.2011, the respondent moved an application Exhibit 102, in original suit for amendment in counter claim. On the said application the lower Court was pleased to call for the say of present applicants. The applicants have filed their reply under the signature of present applicant No.3 and their Advocate on 14.03.2011, and thereby, prayed for rejection of the said application. The applicants have also filed affidavit of the present applicant No.3 in support of their say at Exhibit 103 to the amendment application. The lower Court was 7 c.a.6343.11 pleased to pass an order below Exhibit 102 on 21.03.2011 and thereby allowed the application filed by the present respondent. 6. It is further stated in para No.6 of the reply that, thereafter the matter was adjourned to 29.03.2011 for filing written statement by the present applicants, however, the applicants moved an application Exhibit 106 on 05.04.2011 and sought time for filing written statement and has also disclosed that they want to prefer Second Appeal against the order of remand, the said application was allowed by the lower Court. . It is further stated in para No. 7 of the affidavit that, the applicants thereafter moved an applications at Exhibit 107, 108, 109 and 110 for grant time to file written statement on 08.04.2011, 19.04.2011, 09.06.2011 and 16.06.2011. The learned lower Court was pleased to pass the orders below Exhibit 107, 108 and 109, and thereby, granted last chance. The application 8 c.a.6343.11 Exhibit 110 was filed and specifically ordered that there is no stay to the proceedings, applicants are directed to file amended written statement on next date. . It is further stated in para No. 8 of the affidavit that applicants have moved an application Exhibit on 111 on 23.06.2011, and thereby, sought time for filing written statement and in the said application, the applicants have mentioned that stamp number of proceedings filed before this Court. The applicants have wanted to place on record the letter of the advocate of the High Court. It is the case of the respondent that, in the said letter of the advocate of the High Court dated 20.06.2011, it is mentioned that, ”the matter may come up for admission hearing according to the computer date given by the office”. . It is further stated in para NO. 9 that, the application Exhibit 111 filed by the applicants on 9 c.a.6343.11 23.06.2011, was rejected by the lower Court and matter was posted on 12.07.2011. On 12.07.2011 the applicants have filed their written statement and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 14.07.2011 for framing issue. The learned lower Court framed the issues on 14.07.2011. On 18.07.2011 the deponent filed his affidavit in the form of chief examination and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2011, 09.08.2011, 17.08.2011, however, the applicants have not cross-examined the deponent. On 17.08.2011, the applicants have filed pursis at Exhibit 117 regarding stay orders passed by this Court. 7. The respondent No.1 has also filed para wise reply to the averment in the application for condonation of delay and rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicants-appellants. The respondent No.1 has denied that there is only 12 days delay. . It is stated in para No.13 that, the grounds mentioned in the original application and the 10 c.a.6343.11 dates mentioned in rejoinder affidavit by the applicants cannot be said to be the ground for condonation of delay and same are denied. It is stated that remand order was came to be passed on 24.12.2010 and the parties were directed to appear before the lower Court on 27.01.2011. The applicants have reported their appearance before the lower Court by filing pursis at Exhibit 100 on 17.02.2011, and on the date also, it was not disclosed that they wants to challenge the order of remand. . It is further stated that the delay is not accidental and unintentional. The applicants have participated before the lower Court after the remand order and till the filing of reply to the application for amendment, the applicants have not disclosed about filing of Appeal from order, which itself goes to shows that the act of the applicants is deliberate and intentional and only to point out to the lower that the proceedings are pending before the Hon’ble High Court. 11 c.a.6343.11 . It is further stated that the applicants have filed reply to the amendment application on 14.03.2011 and the said reply was supported with an affidavit of present applicant No.3, meaning thereby the applicants have participated before the lower Court after order of remand. The applicants have also filed their amended written statement and thereafter issues were framed and the deponent has also filed his affidavit in the form of Chief Examination. It is further stated that though the applicants have filed Appeal from Order and application for condonation of delay in the month of April, 2010, same was not circulated, by filing adjournment applications before the lower Court sought time, and thereby proceedings could not be proceeded and when the mater was list for cross-examination, after seeking several adjournments, the matter was circulated for the first time in August, 2011, which goes to show that the applicants want to show that the certain proceedings are pending before the High Court. 12 c.a.6343.11 . It is further stated in para No.14 of the affidavit that, the applicants have not disclosed any reason in the original application as well as in rejoinder affidavit, and when the applicants have allowed to expire the limitation period have not explained the delay and the dates mentioned about filing of the application for certified copies cannot be the ground for condonation of delay. The applicants have not pleaded in the application and rejoinder affidavit about the earlier delay, and therefore, the delay condonation application is liable to rejected with costs. 8. Learned counsel appearing for applicants invited my attention to the averments in the application and rejoinder affidavit, which are reproduced herein above and submitted that, valuable right of the appeal of the party should not get defeated on technicalities. The learned counsel further submitted that, the applicants advocate was under impression that he has filed an 13 c.a.6343.11 application for getting certified copies of the judgment and decree under challenge. However, when the one of the applicants went to collect the certified copies on 24.03.2011 to his Advocate, it was revealed that the application for getting certified copies of the judgment and decree was not filed. On 24.03.2011 was the last date for filing appeal to challenge the said impugned judgment and order. 9. Learned counsel appearing for applicants invited my attention to the averments made in para No. 2 of rejoinder affidavit and submitted that, as soon as certified copies are received, the Appeal from Order is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of Shrimant Jadhavrao Anandrao Pawar and others Vs. Dilip Balvantrao Pawarand another reported in AIR 2003 SC 2176, and submitted that,in application seeking condonation of delay, it is only period of those days before filing of appeal, which is required to 14 c.a.6343.11 be explained and application for condonation of delay cannot be refused on the ground that the period prior to those days which fall within limitation has not been explained. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the application deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed affidavit in reply and submitted that, the delay in filing Appeal from Order is not properly explained and same is intentional. The applicants were aware that at the time of remanding the matter the lower Appellate Court directed the parties to appear before the lower Court on 27.01.2011. However, applicants did not appear before the lower Court on said date. The applicants did appear before the lower Court on 17.02.2011 by filing pursis. He invited my attention to the affidavit in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 and submitted that, the applicants were well aware about the 15 c.a.6343.11 proceedings pending before the lower Court and they were in contact with their advocates. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants allowed to expire the limitation period and thereafter filed an application for condonation of delay, therefore, the entire period including appeal period requires to be counted, while considering the prayer for delay condition. . Therefore, According to the learned counsel for respondent, there is delay of more than 110 days in filing the Appeal from order. Therefore, in the facts of this case, the learned counsel for respondent would submit that the delay may not be condoned. . The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Rajnarayansingh Avadhraj Singh and ors Vs. Smt. Vidyadevi Widow of Ramraj Singh Kalu Singh and others reported in 2003(3) ALL M.R. 1071 and submitted that, if the application is not 16 c.a.6343.11 within period of limitation the applicants- appellants cannot claim benefit of exclusion of time required for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree. . It is further submitted that, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajitsingh Thakur Singh Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 1981(1) SCC 495 has taken a view that, when party allowed limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for not filing appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it was not possible to file the appeal within time. . The learned counsel further placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of P.K. Ramchandran V. State of Kerala reported in 1997(7)SCC 556 and submitted that unless there is a reasonable or satisfactory explanation, delay cannot be condoned. Learned counsel further invited my attention to reported judgment of 17 c.a.6343.11 Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu dead by L.Rs. Vs. State of A.P. And others reported in 2011(4) Mh.L.J.104 and submitted that while considering the prayer for condonation of delay, the Court should decide the case based upon their opinions on objectivity and impartiality therefore, counsel appearing for respondent would submit that the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 11. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lanka Venkateshwarlu dead by L.Rs. Vs. State of A.P. And others cited supra, that “Judges must do justice without fear or favour ill-will or malice- must base their opinions on objectivity and impartiality be guided only by the consideration of doing justice,” I proceed to decide this application for condonation of delay, caused in preferring the Appeal from Order. 18 c.a.6343.11 . It is the case of the applicants herein that, they rushed to their advocate to collect the certified copies of the judgment and decree, passed by the learned District Judge-9 Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Suit NO. 241 of 2005, dated 24.12.2010, for challenging the same by way of filing Appeal from Order before this Court. It is the contention of the applicants that, their advocate was under impression that he has filed an application for certified copies of the Judgment and decree and the copies are awaited. However, subsequently, they found that advocate went to copying section for collecting the copies and it was revealed that application was not at all filed. Therefore, if the advocate was engaged by the applicants, who was under impression that he has applied for certified copies, and in fact such application was not made by him, therefore, for the negligence or fault of advocate the applicants should not suffer. . It is true that, the applicants herein did 19 c.a.6343.11 appear before the lower Court after remand order by the lower Appellate Court. They did participate in the proceeding before the lower Appellate Court. The said fact has not been denied by the applicants. However, the applicants want to challenge the order passed by the District Court, by which the matter was remanded back to the lower court. The applicants have right to challenge the said judgment and decree. It is valuable right of the applicants to file such Appeal. . Merely, because applicants participated before the lower Court in the proceeding, it cannot be concluded that they were aware about the fact that, their Advocate has not applied for certified copy of the Judgment and decree. In fact, it is the case of the applicants that, on enquiry with their Advocate, it revealed that their advocate was under impression that the certified copies of the judgment and order was applied, however, when applicant No.3 went to collect the certified copies, it further revealed 20 c.a.6343.11 that such certified copy of the judgment and decree was not applied by their advocate. Therefore, because of the mistake committed by their advocate, the applicants cannot be held responsible. . It is true that the certified copies are applied after limitation period is over. However, the explanation which is given in the application for condonation of delay is that, advocate for the applicants was under impression that, he has filed an application for certified copies of the Judgment and decree, however, when the applicant No.3 herein went to their advocate for collecting the certified copies, the concern Advocate went to copying section for collecting certified copies, but it revealed that application was not filed for getting certified copies. 12. Therefore, in my opinion, the delay caused in filing the Appeal from Order cannot be attributed to the applicants, as such. In fact, 21 c.a.6343.11 it is the mistake of their advocate, and for the mistake of advocate the litigant should not suffer. Even if, there is delay of more than 110 days, the explanation offered by the applicants in their application for condonation of delay and re- joinder affidavit can be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by citing plethora of decisions of this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which takes a view that, sufficient cause should receive liberal interpretation. Ultimately, the right of the party to file Appeal is valuable right and in the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and the delay caused, in filing the Appeal From Order stands condoned. The Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK 22 c.a.6343.11