PRALHAD SHANKARRAO TAJALE & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 08-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
PRALHAD SHANKARRAO TAJALE & ORS.
   v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (REVENUE) & ANR.
    (Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 2018)
MARCH 08, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Procedural laws vis-a-vis substantive
laws – Construction of – Writ petition filed by appellants challenging
order passed by State Minister for Revenue, dismissed by Single
Judge – Intra court appeal filed by appellants – Division Bench
permitted the appellants to withdraw the said appeal with liberty to
file review petition before Single Judge – Review petition filed by
appellants along with application for condonation of delay in filing
the review petition – Review petition had some defects in its filing
and the appellants were directed by Registry of High Court to cure
the defects – Defects not cured by appellants – Review petition listed
before Registrar (Judicial-1) for passing appropriate orders –
Registrar granted four weeks’ time to the appellants to cure the
defects also directing that failing to cure the defects will result in
refusing the registration of the review petition, i.e., it will result in
rejection of the review petition – Application filed by appellants
filed for setting aside the said order, dismissed by Single Judge on
ground of delay – On appeal, held: As far as possible, procedural
laws should not be construed like a penal provision to punish the
parities – Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in
the case, High Court should have been liberal and condoned the
delay and granted the appellants one more opportunity to cure the
defects – Impugned order set aside – Delay in filing the application
filed by appellants before High Court is condoned.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Procedural laws should not be construed like a
penal provision to punish the parities as far as possible.  Having
regard to the nature of controversy involved in the case, the High
Court should have been liberal in taking a view in the matter and
accordingly should have condoned the delay and granted the
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 627
627
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
appellants one more opportunity to cure the defects. The interest
of justice demanded one more opportunity to the appellants to
comply with the orders of the Registry.  [Paras 16, 17] [631-B, G]
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr.,
AIR 1955 SC 425 : [1955] SCR 1 – relied on.
1.2 The delay in filing the application filed by the appellants
before the High Court is hereby condoned. The appellants are
granted one month’s time as an outer limit to cure the defects
pointed out by the Registry in their Review Application.
[Para 19] [632-A]
Case Law Reference
[1955] SCR 1
 relied on
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2601
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Application No.120/2016.
Ms. Deeplaxmi S. Matwankar,  Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Chander
Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nishant Katneshwarkar, Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 18.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Civil Application No.120 of 2016 in Rejected Case No.149 of 2016 in
Rejected Case No.148 of 2016 whereby the Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the appellants’ application on the ground of delay.
3. In order to appreciate the short question involved in the appeal,
few facts need mention infra.
4. The appellants herein were the Writ/Review Petitioners before
the High Court in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises.  On
28.08.2012, the appellants filed a petition being Writ Petition No.8516 of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
629
2012 before the High Court of Bombay questioning therein the legality
and correctness of the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the State
Minister for Revenue (MH).  It was in relation to a certain land dispute
whereby the appellants’ revision application was dismissed.
5. On 27.11.2012, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the appellants’ writ petition.  The appellants felt aggrieved and filed intra
court appeal (L.P.A.No.33 of 2013) before the Division Bench.
6. By order dated 22.03.2014, the Division Bench permitted the
appellants to withdraw the intra court appeal and granted them liberty to
file 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.