9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , seeking declaration of their title in relation to the suit schedule homestead land; for cancellation of mutation; and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or otherwise causing injury in relation to the suit schedule land. The suit schedule land is an extent of .0486 hectares in Patta No. 42/490(old)/767(new) in Dag No. 6039 situated at Keishamthong Elangbam Leikai, Imphal. The written statement was filed by the defendants in the suit on 16.02.2007. The temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in Judl. Misc. Case No. 148 of 2008 was rejected by the Trial Court on 30.06.2008. Issues were framed by the Trial Court on 16.08.2008. Thereafter, no steps seem to have been taken f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the LR application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 73 of 2012. 3. On 13.06.2014, the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. I, Manipur East, dismissed all three miscellaneous cases. The widow and children of late Longjam Bijoy Singh, the first plaintiff, filed CRP No. 40 of 2014 assailing the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 479 and 480 of 2013. Longjam Ibohal Singh and Longjam Brojendro Singh, the other two plaintiffs in the suit, filed CRP No. 48 of 2015 against the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013. 4. Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in both the CRPs; and Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the respondents therein. 5. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Records and others [1984 (Supp) SCC 431], the Supreme Court relied on its earlier observations in Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another [(1981) 2 SCC 788] to the effect that, after engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer would look after his interest and the personal appearance of the party would not only be not required but would hardly be useful. This principle was applied in Ashok Ravji Vadodriya Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay [AIR 2004 Bombay 8]. In Lala Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770], the Supreme Court affirmed that mistake of counsel may, in certain circumstances, be taken into account to condone delay, although there is no general proposition that mistake of coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that the mistake of their counsel, if any, should to be condoned. Though Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, would assert that the failure to appear on the relevant day alone has to be taken into consideration, this Court would be justified in examining the conduct of the party all through to ascertain whether 'the failure to appear' was a chronic phenomenon and not a stray instance. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the effort of the Court should be to see that justice is done, which would include justice to both the parties to the litigation. That being so, a defendant cannot be penalized and made to suffer the rigours of litigation over decades, despite the plaintiff being lax and careless in prosecuting the case. 7. In the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants therein. Therefore, this application was also filed on behalf of a dead person. The only reason cited therein by the learned counsel for the applicants for restoration of Judl. Misc. Case No. 117 of 2012 was that the said application was listed on 17.01.2013 and he came to Court around 12:00 noon and upon checking the record he found that the restoration application was dismissed for default. No reason was offered by the learned counsel as to why he failed to come to Court on time. This aspect was taken note of by the Trial Court in the order dated 13.06.2014 and the miscellaneous case was rejected. It is not open to a party or its learned counsel to take it for granted that an application of this nature would be dealt with leniently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o quantify the number of days delay in the filing of the restoration application. This aspect was noted by the Trial Court in its order dated 13.06.2014 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 479 of 2013. To compound matters, all that the learned counsel stated in the delay condonation application was that the restoration petition could not be filed within the period of limitation due to 'oversight, inadvertence and bonafide mistake'. No details were given as to how the claimed 'oversight, inadvertence and bonafide mistake' had application. The least that was expected was for the counsel to explain as to what was the bonafide mistake. No steps having been taken by him to show 'sufficient cause' for the delay, no grounds are made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
