Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76475 (BOM)

ROSHAN LAL BHASIN v. SUBHAS KHANNA

CRA/595/2019 · 2025-11-04

Shri Sandeep V Marne

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neeta Sawant 42-CRA- 595-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 595 OF 2019 Roshan Lal Bhasin …..Applicant : Versus : Subhas Khanna ….Respondent Mr. Rangpal S. Tripathi, for the Applicant. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 4 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C : 1) The Revision Application challenges order dated 20 June 2019 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court rejecting Notice of Motion No. 1566/2018 seeking condonation of delay of 4 years, 9 months and 5 days in applying for setting aside order of dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. 2) I have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. 3) The delay in applying for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution is inordinate. The Plaintiff was required to _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 of 2 TUESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2025 Neeta Sawant 42-CRA- 595-2019.docx provide adequate justification for condonation of inordinate delay of 4 years, 9 months and 5 days. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has found the justification pleaded for condonation of delay to be not satisfactory. Mere old age of the earlier advocate of the Plaintiff cannot be a ground for non-appearance in the suit. It was Plaintiff’s duty to enquire about the status of the suit. The reason pleaded by the Plaintiff for condonation of delay is originally found to be non-satisfactory. Even otherwise, the application is kept pending for last six long years without moving the same even once before the Court. This also shows lack of seriousness on the part of the Plaintiff in prosecuting his case. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 of 2 TUESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2025 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2025.11.07 09:44:13 +0530