Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, beneficiaries of a public trust (Masjid), challenged an order dated 7.4.1988 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, dismissing their application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay was in filing a petition under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, against an amalgamation order dated 12.8.1981 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 50A(2) of the Act, amalgamating two Masjids. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the amalgamation order until 17.1.1984 and that respondent No.1, a trustee, took responsibility in a meeting on 20.1.1984 to get the order set aside. They filed the petition for condonation of delay, but the District Judge rejected it. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined whether the District Judge erred in exercising discretion. The court noted that the petitioners did not act promptly even after learning of the order in January 1984, as they waited for respondent No.1 to take action, which did not materialize. The court held that the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause for the entire delay, and the District Judge's order was not perverse or arbitrary. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the condonation application.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioners sought condonation of delay of over two years in filing a petition under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, challenging an amalgamation order dated 12.8.1981. The court held that the explanation that the petitioners were unaware of the order until 17.1.1984 and that respondent No.1 took responsibility to get the order set aside did not constitute sufficient cause, as the petitioners failed to act diligently. The District Judge's discretion in rejecting the application was not interfered with. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for filing a petition under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, challenging an amalgamation order passed under Section 50A(2) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 7.4.1988 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, rejecting the application for condonation of delay, is upheld.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Sufficient cause
- Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- Section 72
- Delay in filing appeal
- Discretion of court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (11) 7
Writ Petition No. 227 of 1992
Mr. S.K. Shinde for petitioners; Mr. M.A. Nerlikar h/f Mr. S.T. Shelke for respondents 1 to 3
Sayed Salam Gafoor Pirjade, Shaikh Babamiya Usman (abated), Shaikh Ibrahim Abdulla, Shaikh Rafique Gulam Hussain
Shaikh Gulab Nabee Hussein, Hasan Abdul Choudhary, Abdul Karim Burhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order rejecting application for condonation of delay in filing petition under Section 72 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 7.4.1988 dismissing their application for condonation of delay, and to allow the delay to be condoned so that their petition under Section 72 could be heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the amalgamation order dated 12.8.1981 until 17.1.1984, and that respondent No.1 took responsibility to get it set aside, but failed to do so, leading to delay in filing the petition.
Previous Decisions
The 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, by order dated 7.4.1988 in Misc. Application No. 91 of 1986, dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Issues
Whether the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the petition under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were not aware of the amalgamation order until 17.1.1984 and that respondent No.1 took responsibility to get it set aside, which constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
Respondents argued that the petitioners did not act diligently and the explanation was not sufficient to condone the delay of over two years.
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion exercised by the District Judge in rejecting the application for condonation of delay was not perverse or arbitrary. The petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay, as they did not act promptly even after learning of the amalgamation order in January 1984. The court declined to interfere with the order under writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.4.1988 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Misc. Application No. 91 of 1986, thereby dismissing application for condonation of delay.
The facts, which necessitates to file this petition, are as under;- It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Sangamner and are beneficiaries and interested persons of Masjid known as new Momainpura Masjid registered as public Trust bearing PR.T No. B-85.
It is further case of the petitioners that till 17.1.1984, they were not aware of the amalgamation of two trusts.
Procedural History
On 12.8.1981, Joint Charity Commissioner passed an ex parte order amalgamating two Masjids under Section 50A(2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Petitioners claimed they became aware of the order on 17.1.1984. On 20.1.1984, a meeting was held where respondent No.1 took responsibility to get the order set aside. Petitioners filed a petition under Section 72 of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. The District Judge dismissed the condonation application on 7.4.1988. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court on an unspecified date (Writ Petition No. 227 of 1992). The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 29.11.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: Section 50A(2), Section 72, Section 37, Section 41-B, Section 41-D
