Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, was a tenant in the suit premises owned by the respondents. After a decree for possession was passed in favour of the respondents, the respondents filed Special Mesne Profits Case No. 01 of 2004 under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for determination of mesne profit. The trial Court partly allowed the application on 11.11.2011, directing the appellant to pay mesne profit and requiring the respondents to pay court fee stamps for the decretal amount. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. The application was allowed on 18.04.2014, and corrections were made. After the respondents deposited the court fees, a decree was drawn on 07.11.2014. Meanwhile, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations in a separate appeal concerning the possession decree. The negotiations failed, as recorded in a mediation report dated 13.02.2015. The appellant then applied for a certified copy on 16.02.2015 and filed an appeal against the mesne profit decree on 13.03.2015. Due to a Registry objection, an application for condonation of delay was filed on 25.03.2015, with the delay calculated as 1128 days from 11.11.2011. Following an enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the appeal was transferred to the District Judge, Bhandara, who by order dated 24.08.2017 in MJC No. 92 of 2015, rejected the condonation application, finding insufficient cause. The appellant then filed the present second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the justification of the appellate Court's refusal to condone delay. The appellant argued that the limitation period should commence from 07.11.2014 when the decree was drawn, not from 11.11.2011, and that the delay was sufficiently explained by the ongoing negotiations, relying on precedents. The respondents contended that the appellate Court correctly rejected the application, highlighting an alleged callous approach. The provided judgment text does not include the Court's analysis, decision, or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate Court was legally justified in refusing to condone delay?
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 52
SECOND APPEAL (SA) NO. 23 OF 2018
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation
Sudhadevi w/o Ramakant Loiya, Rajesh Ramakant Loiya, Anil s/o Ramakant Loiya, Smt. Ushadevi w/o Banwari Loiya, Sunil s/o Banwari Loiya, Smt. Pushpadevi w/o Umashankar Loiya, Smt. Sudharani w/o Rameshchandra Loiya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against order rejecting condonation of delay in filing appeal against mesne profit decree.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought condonation of 1128 days delay in filing appeal against mesne profit decree and hearing of appeal on merits.
Filing Reason
Appeal filed due to rejection of condonation application by appellate Court, contending that delay was not 1128 days as limitation commenced from drawing of decree, and delay was due to ongoing settlement negotiations.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court passed judgment on 11.11.2011 partly allowing mesne profit application; corrections under Section 152 allowed on 18.04.2014; decree drawn on 07.11.2014; application for condonation of delay rejected by District Judge, Bhandara on 24.08.2017.
Issues
Whether the first appellate Court was legally justified in refusing to condone delay?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that delay should be calculated from 07.11.2014 when decree was drawn, not from 11.11.2011, and that ongoing settlement negotiations constituted sufficient cause; relied on precedents.
Respondent argued that appellate Court correctly rejected application as no sufficient cause was shown and appellant exhibited callous approach.
Procedural History
Respondents filed suit for possession and arrears, obtained decree; appellant filed RCA No. 43/2012. Respondents filed Special Mesne Profits Case No. 01/2004 under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC; trial Court partly allowed it on 11.11.2011. On 07.08.2012, respondents filed application under Section 152 CPC for correction; allowed on 18.04.2014. Decree drawn on 07.11.2014 after respondents paid court fees. Mediation in RCA failed on 13.02.2015. Appellant applied for certified copy on 16.02.2015, filed appeal on 13.03.2015, and condonation application on 25.03.2015. Appeal transferred to District Judge, Bhandara, who rejected condonation application on 24.08.2017 in MJC No. 92/2015. High Court issued notice on 15.01.2018, framed substantial question of law, and heard the appeal; judgment reserved on 24.04.2018, pronounced on 04.05.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 20 Rule 12, Section 152
