Keru Baba Chavan v. Bharat Dashrath Chavan & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.S.S.Aradhye for the petitioner. Mr.G.M.Savagave i/by Mr.Abhiman D. Patil for respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent No.9. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 04th OCTOBER 2012. P.C.: . Heard both sides. Mr.Savagave tenders affidavit of respondent No.1, which is taken on record. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, by the impugned order dated 18th April 2012, has dismissed the revision application of the petitioner in default and not on merits and that is why this writ petition. 2} The petitioner's apologises for not being present before the Additional Commissioner on more than five occasions but states that he is senior citizen and last opportunity be given to him to appear and satisfy the Additional Commissioner that there is merit in the revision application. 3} Mr.Savagave appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents is contending that the conduct of the petitioner is not such as would enable him to invoke the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court. 2 4} Having perused the order under challenge with the assistance of counsel, I am of the opinion that the Additional Commissioner entertains some strange belief that he is exercising powers of First Appellate Court functioning as such under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, he can dismiss a revision application before him by applying that logic of dismissal of appeal directed against a decree summarily or in default. 5} The Additional Commissioner forgets that what he was to decide was a revision application. That revision application was filed by the present petitioner. It invokes his revisional powers and not appellate powers. Therefore, his order is vitiated by total non application of mind. Therefore, it is set aside and the revision application of the petitioner is restored to file of the Commissioner before whom all parties shall appear on 18th October 2012 at
Operative part
10.30 a.m. However, the petitioner has caused serious harassment to the contesting respondent No.1 by dragging him right up to this Court. Therefore, the petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs.2,500/ which costs shall be paid within two weeks and if only the costs are paid, the revision application shall be revived and be heard within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. 3 6} Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs.
(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 04 Oct 2012. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.