1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.988 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.8065 of 2008 With Civil Application No.990 of 2008 In Writ Petition No.9397 of 2007 Udharam A. Parwani since deceased represented by his legal heirs: Pushpa wd/o. Udharam Parwani & ors. Applicants Vs. Union of India & ors. Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b. Mr.H.P.Vyas for applicants. Mr.A.N.Samant for respondents CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 29, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.Samant, the learned counsel for the respondents - railway authorities. 2. Writ Petition Nos.8065 and 9397 of 2004 challenging the decree of eviction came to be 2 admitted by this Court on 20/12/2005 by a common order and for interim relief certain conditions were required to be followed by the petitioners. One of such conditions was to deposit Rs.30,000/- per month by way of compensation from January 2006 and the said amount was directed to be paid by 15th day of each month in advance to the respondents. It was further clarified that in an event of default in payment of monthly compensation, the stay shall stand vacated. 3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners started remitting an amount of Rs.30,000/- from January 2006 onwards with the Registry of this Court. It appears that the respondent nos.2 and 3 obtained Bank statements from the Registry of this Court till April 2008 and it was noticed that there were two continuous defaults in regard to the deposits in July and August 2007 and this resulted in eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises on 26th March 2008 (the premises were sealed) and, therefore, these Civil Applications have been filed praying for directions to the Railways to remove the said affixed on the premises by them and to hand over the subject premises (furniture shop) to them. It was submitted by Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel for the applicants 3 that they were diligent in depositing the cheque of Rs.30,000/- before tenth of every month and the so called default noticed in the deposits pertaining to July and August 2007 is concerned, it was not their mistake or fault and, therefore, they cannot be penalised. Mr.Samant, the learned counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents had obtained the datewise information from the Registry of this Court regarding the receipts of the deposited amounts and in the month of July and August 2007, defaults were noticed and consequently, as per the conditional order passed by this Court on 20/12/2005, the interim relief of stay to the execution of the eviction decree ceased to exist and, therefore, the suit premises were sealed. 4. I called for a report from the Nazir of this Court and the same has been placed on record. It is evident that the Assistant Registrar in the Writ Petition Branch did not pass orders after the applicants had deposited the cheques for the month of July and August 2008. The first order was passed on 17/8/2007, whereas the second order was passed on 6/8/2007. In the first case the cheque was received by the Nazir on 5/9/2007 and in the second case it 4 was received on 30/8/2007. Nazir thereafter deposited the cheques in the concerned Banks and prepared the record in which it was shown that the deposits were received on 7/9/2007 and 4/9/2007 respectively (late by two months and one month). Stand off between the parties thus originated from the inaction or delayed action on the part of the Assistant Registrar in the Writ Petition Branch of this Court. 5. It is also noted that during the pendency of the petitions the original tenant died and, therefore, the LRs have been brought on record. Mr.Samant, the learned counsel for the Railways, therefore, prayed for an appropriate order so that the undertakings furnished before this Court bind the LRs as well. Mr.Samant also prayed for early date of hearing to be fixed in the petitions. He also pointed out that in the mean while the applicants have filed Contempt Petition against the Railway officials and for no fault of theirs. 6. In the premises these applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Undoubtedly the conditions set out in the order passed by this Court 5 on 20/12/2005 shall be binding on the LRs of the original petitioners who have now come on record as the petitioners. A copy of this order be placed in the file of Contempt Petition No.141 of 2008 for appropriate order. 7. The Registrar (Judicial) is hereby directed to streamline the working of the concerned Branches as well as the Nazir Department so that the inconvenience as well as loss caused to the applicants is not allowed to be recurred in future, not only in these petitions but any of such cases. Such an action shall be taken by the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from today. 8. As a matter of abundant precaution the applicants are directed to give a written intimation to the respondent nos.2 and 3 as soon as the cheques are deposited with the Registry of this Court in every month. (B.H.MARL