Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Gahaninath Aba Avadhut, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Lower Appellate Court at Solapur. The impugned order dated 12.06.2012 rejected the petitioner's application for extension of time to pay costs of Rs.1,500/- that had been imposed by the Lower Appellate Court's earlier order dated 16.09.2011 as a condition for condoning the delay in filing a Miscellaneous Civil Application (No.80/2006). The petitioner had failed to pay the costs within the stipulated time and sought an extension, which was denied on the ground that no sufficient reasons were given. The High Court, in its oral judgment delivered by Justice R.M. Savant, observed that since the Lower Appellate Court had already found it fit to condone the delay by imposing costs, it would be just and proper to extend the time to pay the costs. The court noted that the costs had already been deposited in the High Court and directed that they be transmitted to the Lower Appellate Court, with Respondent No.1 being entitled to withdraw the same. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Lower Appellate Court was directed to number the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. The rule was made absolute with parties bearing their own costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Extension of Time to Pay Costs - Where the Lower Appellate Court had condoned delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,500/-, the subsequent rejection of an application for extension of time to pay such costs was held to be too harsh. The High Court extended the time, noting that the costs had already been deposited, and directed the Lower Appellate Court to number and decide the appeal on merits. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time to pay costs imposed as a condition for condonation of delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 12.06.2012, extended the time to pay costs, directed the costs already deposited in the High Court to be transmitted to the Lower Appellate Court, and directed the Lower Appellate Court to number the appeal and decide it in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with parties bearing their own costs.
Law Points
- Extension of time to pay costs
- Condonation of delay
- Imposition of costs as condition
- Liberal approach in condonation
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 105
WRIT PETITION NO. 7102 OF 2012
Mr.R.S.Alange for Petitioner; None for Respondents
Shri Gahaninath Aba Avadhut
Janardhan Kaka Avadhut & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order rejecting an application for extension of time to pay costs.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 12.06.2012 and extension of time to pay costs of Rs.1,500/- imposed by the Lower Appellate Court.
Filing Reason
The Lower Appellate Court rejected the petitioner's application for extension of time to pay costs, which were imposed as a condition for condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application No.80/2006.
Previous Decisions
The Lower Appellate Court by order dated 16.09.2011 condoned the delay subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner failed to pay within time and sought extension, which was rejected on 12.06.2012.
Issues
Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application for extension of time to pay costs imposed as a condition for condonation of delay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that sufficient reasons were not considered by the Lower Appellate Court for extension of time.
Respondents did not appear despite service.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a court has condoned delay subject to payment of costs, a subsequent rejection of an application for extension of time to pay such costs is too harsh, especially when the costs have already been deposited. The court should adopt a liberal approach to ensure that the appeal is heard on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.
Judgment Excerpts
In my view, considering the fact that the Lower Appellate Court had found it fit to condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.1,500/-, it would be just and proper to extend the time to pay the said costs.
Since the costs are already deposited in this Court, the same to be transmitted to the Court of the learned District Judge, Solapur.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No.80/2006 before the Lower Appellate Court. The court condoned the delay by order dated 16.09.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner sought extension of time to pay costs, which was rejected on 12.06.2012. The petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition No.7102 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 148, Order 41 Rule 3A
