-: 1 :- wp-9751/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9751 OF 2010. Yashwant A. Jadhav. ..Petitioner. Versus Sulochana D. Kadam & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Deepak A. Patil for the petitioner. Mrs. B. P. Jakhade for R-1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 11, 2011. P. C. : 1. By the order dated 1/8/2011, this Court [Coram: S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable after four weeks. By the said notice, the respondents were also intimated that the petition would be disposed of finally on the returnable date. In pursuant of this notice, respondent no.1 has entered appearance. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 despite service, have chosen to remain absent. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent nos.2 & 3 never participated in the proceedings before the authorities below. srp -: 2 :- wp-9751/10 2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Jakhade, learned counsel for respondent no.1. By the order impugned in the petition, the President of MRT dismissed the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 5 months that had occurred in filing revision against the order of SDO. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as follows : . The petitioner filed an application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short “BT&AL Act”] against the respondents for declaration that he is tenant in the suit land from the year 1984. This application was allowed by the Tehsildar by his order dated 10/2/2003 and petitioner was declared tenant in the suit land from the year 1984. The 1st respondent challenged Tehsildar’s order by filing Appeal No.36 of 2004 before SDO, Chiplun under section 74 of the BT&AL Act. This appeal was allowed by the SDO on 28/7/2005, whereby Tehsildar’s order came to be set aside. On 15/8/2008, i.e., approximately after 2 years and 5 months, the petitioner filed revision before the MRT under section 76 of BT&AL Act challenging SDO’s order. The petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. -: 3 :- wp-9751/10 The said application is rejected by MRT and therefore the present writ petition. 3. The order in an appeal under section 74 of BT&AL Act was passed by the SDO on 28/7/2005. It is petitioner’s case that he applied for the certified copy on 23/1/2006 and on the same day the copies were made available to him. It is his contention that certified copies and other documents were given to one Mr. Ghag, Advocate for filing revision in MRT. In the month of July 2008, however, the petitioner was informed by the said Advocate that he has misplaced the papers. The petitioner thereafter on 13th July 2008 again applied for certified copies and after getting fresh certified copies filed revision through another advocate on 14/8/2008. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that certified copies obtained earlier, were given to Advocate Ghag, however, Mr. Ghag misplaced the said copies. The petitioner came to know about the same only in the month of July 2008 and thereafter he applied for fresh certified copies and filed revision through another Advocate. Learned President of MRT found that the explanation is unsatisfactory and therefore refused to condone delay. -: 4 :- wp-9751/10 4. I have gone through the delay condonation application as well as separate affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his prayer for condonation of delay. The petitioner on oath has stated that certified copies obtained earlier were entrusted to Advocate Mr. Ghag for filing revision in MRT. Further statement is made that only in the month of July 2008 when the petitioner enquired with said Mr. Ghag, Mr. Ghag told him that papers are misplaced. This averment in affidavit is not denied by the respondents by filing reply. The statement made in the affidavit by the petitioner therefore cannot be discarded. In any case, the petitioner cannot be punished for the fault of his lawyer. The petitioner however has not satisfactorily explained delay from 28/7/2005 to 23/1/2006. The period of limitation prescribed under relevant section is 60 days. If this period of limitation is taken into consideration, then the petitioner has not explained delay between 28/9/2005 to 23/1/2006. Taking into consideration the overall facts of the case coupled with age of the petitioner, who is 72 years old, in my view, the ends of justice would be met by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to fight his case on merits before the MRT. The prejudice, if any, caused to respondent no.1 can be -: 5 :- wp-9751/10 compensated by directing the petitioner to pay cost. In the light of aforesaid discussion, writ petition is disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The impugned order dated 9th November 2010 passed by MRT in the revision filed by the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Application filed at Exhibit-24 by the petitioner in Revision No. 301/B/2008 is allowed and delay occurred in filing revision is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to respondent no.1, within the period of four weeks from today. (iii) The MRT shall hear and dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and on its own merits. (RANJIT MORE, J.)