1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Civil Application No. 2598 of 2008 in Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 5086/2008 in M.C.A . No. 322 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 1069/1998 (Decided) (Sakharam Narayan Jire through L.Rs. And anr. Vs. Ganpat Narayan Urkunde through L.Rs. & anr.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Ingole, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. A.R. Sambre, Advocate, for R-1B. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 20 th January, 2009 The applicants have challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 21/1/1998, before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1069/1998. After the death of respondent no.1, the applicants/ original petitioners moved an application for bringing the names of legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 on record. The Court allowed the application and since one of the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 by name Devidas expired on 1/6/2003, the Court, by an order 2 dated 28/11/2003, permitted the applicants to bring the names of the legal heirs of deceased Devidas on record. Since the applicants failed to substitute the names of the legal heirs of deceased Devidas on record and since in spite of grant of time on a couple of occasions, the amendment was not carried out, when the matter was listed before the Court on 11/3/2004, the Court passed the following order: “None Present. If the amendment against the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No.1 is not carried out within one week, this writ petition shall stand dismissed.” It is the case of the applicants that the matter went unattended on 11/3/2004 and after securing the knowledge about the dismissal of the writ petition, the applicants filed an application for restoration of the writ petition. The same was numbered as Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 322 of 2004. During the pendency of the Miscellaneous Civil Application, the counsel for 3 the applicants expired and hence, this Court had issued notices to the petitioners for engagement of another counsel. The said notices were served on the applicants. But since none appeared on behalf of the applicants on 16/6/2006, when the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 322/2004 was listed for orders, the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 322/2004 was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is the case of the applicants that on 11/3/2004, the writ petition was not attended to by the counsel for the applicants. It is further stated in the application that on 16/6/2006 when the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 322/2004 was dismissed, the name of the counsel for the applicants did not appear in the cause list and, therefore, the matter went unattended on that day also. It is further submitted in the civil application that the applicants became aware about the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 322/2004, only in the first week of March, 2008 when they made an enquiry about the progress of the matter with the present 4 counsel. It is stated in the application that the delay caused in filing the Miscellaneous Civil Application Stamp No. 5086/2008 is not intentional and the delay may be condoned. The non-applicant no.1-B has filed a reply to the application and admitted that a conditional order was passed on 11/3/2004 as nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicants. It is stated in the reply that the notices issued to the applicants on engagement of another counsel were duly served on the applicants, but the applicants neither appeared before this Court on 16/6/2006, nor engaged another counsel. It is submitted in the reply that thereafter the applicants did nothing for the period of more than two years. It is also stated in the reply that the applicants are avoiding the order of eviction passed against the applicants by prolonging the litigation. According to the non-applicant, there is no reason for condoning the delay in filing the Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 5086/2006 and the application is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The applicants 5 have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 5086/2008. It appears from a perusal of the record that after the counsel for the applicants expired during the pendency of Misc. Civil Application No. 322/2004, the Court issued notices to the applicants on engagement of another counsel. The notices issued to the applicants were duly served on the applicants prior to 27/12/2005. However, none appeared on behalf of the applicants on 16/6/2006. Hence the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is not stated in the present application that the applicants were not aware about the purpose for which the notices were issued to them after the death of their counsel, but it is merely stated in this application that when the matter was listed before the Court on 16/6/2006, the name of the counsel for the appellants did not appear in the cause list and, therefore, the matter went unattended on 16/6/2006. It is conspicuous to note that after the applicants were served with the notice of engagement of another counsel before 6 27/12/2005, the applicants had not engaged any counsel. Therefore, the reasons stated in this application that the name of the counsel for the applicants could not be noticed by the juniors in the office of the earlier counsel and the matter went unattended on that date, cannot be a ground for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of Misc. Civil Application No. 322/2004. It is the case of the non-applicants and it is quite credible that the applicants were purposely delaying the proceedings as an order of eviction was passed against them. It cannot be said in the facts of the case that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Misc. Civil Application Stamp No. 5086/2008. The applications are, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE RMP