TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the decision given by the trial Court in a suit filed for relief of injunction. Both the sides are heard. Regular Civil Suit No. 831 of 2003 was filed by present appellants against the respondents. The respondents include officers of the Survey Department and officers of the Municipal Council, Paithan. The other defendant are said to be neighbours of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in respect of house property bearing Nos. 1856 to 1859 having size of 60 x 49 ft situated at Kaherwada, Taluka Paithan. Relief of perpetual injunction was sought by the appellants and it is refused by the trial Court. There are allegations against the officers of the Survey Department and the Municipal Council that they c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of Bansi and Hiraman though the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and this decision has become final. As per the decision of the First Appellate Court, possession of the suit property was handed over to Bansi and Hiraman. The judgment of the trial Court shows that the present appellants admitted that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have made Construction over this property. The record prepared by city survey office and the officers of the municipal Council is also Considered by the trial Court and the suit is dismissed. 5. In the application filed for Condonation of delay, the present appellants had Contended before the District Court that there was suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffered explanation with regard to the remaining period. With these observations the application filed for Condonation of delay is dismissed. 8. In the present proceeding a Copy of judgment delivered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964 and Copy of possession record prepared in execution proceeding bearing No. 75/1966 came to be produced. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 that the matter was already decided in the year 1966 and possession was also handed over in 1966 and there was no reasons for filing the suit again. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the dispute involved is in respect of immovable property and the First Appellate Court ought to have held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribe period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertain or Computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 11. In Section 5 at two places the word "may" is used. This shows that the Curt has discretionary power in this regard. Section 5 further shows that the party seeking extension of prescribed period is required to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal/application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is beyond the Control of the party invoking the section. Any cause which prevents the parties approaching the Court within time is sufficient. Here only it needs to be observed that the cause must have arisen within prescribed time and the cause must have Continued beyond that. In ascertaining cause, the test of reasonable man in normal circumstance needs to be applied. The burden in this regard rests on the party seeking Condonation of delay. He needs to discharge it by adducing evidence. 14. The Apex Court has laid down that the purpose of provision is to advance substantial justice and so the Court using discretion must prima facie ascertain whether denying of relief would amount to frustrating meritorious case and denying substanti....