Bombay High Court at Goa sets aside order for violation of natural principles of justice by not taking into consideration the delay caused due to various circumstances
Title: Mazania of Temple of Shree Laxmi Narayan v. Yeshwant Chandrakant Sardesai
Decided on: August 3, 2023
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1600
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE B.P. DESHPANDE
Facts of the Case
The present Revision is filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, by which, the learned Trial Court condoned the delay of 1710 days in filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, challenging the order dated 01.08.2017. The learned Executing Court by the impugned order awarded civil imprisonment for a period of 25 days together with attachment of the house, in executing the decree. It was strongly contended that the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality as it does not consider the delay from the date of passing of the order and judgment dated 01.08.2017 till the filing of the so called Application for stay on 05.08.2019. He then submitted that immediately thereafter, from the month of March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon’ble Apex Court as held in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Re, (2022) 3 SCC 117, suspended the period of limitation for filing the proceedings, which continued till the month of February 2022.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
The Court held that the learned Trial Court completely lost sight of this fact and only considered the period from 05.08.2019 when the stay Application was filed. Admittedly, the Application for stay was filed on 05.08.2019, but as discussed earlier, the contents of it as true to the knowledge with respect to the said period was not verified or affirmed by the parties. Filing such an Application with the signature of the Advocate is not at all sufficient. No doubt due to Covid-19 pandemic, the period of limitation was suspended from March 2020 till February 2022. However, the Respondents were duty bound to explain the delay in filing the Appeal which starts from the expiry of the period of Appeal, from the date of the impugned order till filing of the stay Application dated 05.08.2019, which is more than one year. There are absolutely no averments in the Application for condonation of delay that the Respondents were not aware of the impugned order. It is also not disclosed that their Advocate did not inform them about the said order. In light of the above observations, the impugned order was quashed and set aside as it failed to consider the period prior to the pandemic and more particularly, prior to the filing of the stay Application. The Revision succeeds and stands as per the Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Reema Nayak
