Bombay High Court

ASHTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusSHRI. PRADIP NANASAHEB PATIL AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The writ petition is allowed, quashing the order rejecting condonation and permitting the application for condonation subject to a restriction on interest.

Summary

The Ashta Municipal Corporation filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 24 June 2014 that rejected its application for condonation of a two‑year‑two‑month delay in seeking restoration of a suit for recovery of Rs. 95,676. The suit, filed against contractors for non‑remittance of octroi collections, had been dismissed for default in 2007 and again in 2009, prompting the corporation to seek restoration in 2011. The corporation argued that the delay was unintentional, caused by staff shortages and transfers, and that the public money involved warranted a chance to prosecute the suit on its merits. The respondent, represented by counsel, opposed the condonation, supporting the impugned order. The court, after considering the submissions, quashed the order rejecting condonation, allowed the application for condonation on the condition that no interest would be payable from the date of default to the date of filing the condonation application, and directed the corporation to furnish an undertaking for expeditious disposal of the suit.

Issues considered

Whether the two‑year‑two‑month delay in filing the application for condonation of delay can be condoned.
Whether the corporation’s status as a body corporate and the involvement of public money justify granting condonation.
Whether interest can be claimed on the recovered amount from the date of default to the date of filing the condonation application.

Subjects

condonation of delay
restoration of suit
public money
municipal corporation
default judgment
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                     72-WP-6373-2015 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 6373 OF 2015

Ashta Municipal Corporation                                        ...Petitioner
       Versus
Shri. Pradip Nanasaheb Patil And Anr.                          ...Respondents

                                  …..
Adv. Manoj Sabale a/w Adv. Abhishek Ganbawale i/b Adv. Aditya Desai,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Adv. S. M. Potdar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                  …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         The petition is directed against judgment and order dated

24.06.2014 passed in M.A. No. 34 of 2011, whereby prayer to condone

the delay of two years and two months is rejected.

3.         The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay is

not intentional. The petitioner - Corporation sincerely wants to

prosecute the suit for the recovery of amount of Rs. 95,676/-, which is

public money. It is further submitted that due to shortage of staff and

frequent transfers of the officers, the petitioner was unable to keep




     ZIP                                                               1 of 3
                                                     72-WP-6373-2015 (C).doc




track of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions

of his client, undertakes that every precaution shall be taken for

prosecuting the suit and its expeditious disposal.

4.         The submissions of the petitioner are contested by the learned

counsel for respondent No. 1. She supports the impugned order.

5.         I have gone through the impugned order and the nature of the

proceedings. The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs. 95,676/-.

The respondents were the contractors who were appointed for

collection of octroi. The last installment was failed to be remitted to the

petitioner - Corporation.

6.         The suit was dismissed for default on 29.10.2007. M.C.A. No. 69

of 2007 was preferred for restoration of suit, but it was also dismissed

for default on 10.02.2009. Being aggrieved, an application for

restoration along with an application for condonation of delay was filed

on 18.04.2011. The application for condonation of delay bearing M.A.

No. 34 of 2011 was rejected vide impugned order dated 24.06.2014.

7.         The petitioner is a body corporate. The reasons have been given

for condonation of delay of two years and two months. There is no

reason to infer any oblique motive on part of the petitioner in preferring

the application for condonation of delay belatedly. The public money is

involved. It would be in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity

to the petitioner - Corporation to prosecute its suit on merits. The



     ZIP                                                               2 of 3
                                                        72-WP-6373-2015 (C).doc




learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that his client would

cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

8.         The writ petition is allowed by quashing the judgment and order

dated 24.06.2014 passed in M.A. No. 34 of 2011. M.A. No. 34 of 2011

stands allowed on condition that, if the petitioner - Corporation

succeeds, it shall not be entitled to claim any interest from 29.10.2007

till 18.04.2011.

9.         The petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit.

Any laxity on its part will not be tolerated. The petitioner shall furnish

an undertaking to the Trial Court ensuring cooperation for expeditious

disposal of the suit within a period of two weeks from today.



                                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                  3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…