IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Misc Civil Application No. /2019

IN

Stamp Number (APPLN.)No. 2842/2019

GOAN RESIDENTIAL RESORTS

PVT. LTD A Company Incorporated
Under the companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at
Sequeira Heritage, House No. 232,
Ward C-2, Near Bal Sharati School,
Alto Ribander, Goa-403 006
Represented by its Director
MRS. DAPHNE SEQUIRA widow of late Eric
Sequeira, Aged 60 years, occ: Business,
R/o Sequeira, Aged 60 years,occ:
Business, R/O Sequeira Heritage, house
no. 232, Ward No. C-2, Near Bal Bharati
School, Alto Ribander, Lihas Goa .

…...PETITIONER/APPLICANT

VERSUS

RAGHBIR SINGH PANWAR,

s/o Surat Singh Panwar,
Aged; 74 years, R/o ‘The Cove’
Block D, Level-9, 521 jalan Tanjung,
Through his Attorney Dr. Sudam Bandu
Mane,
Aged 59 years, R/o Sweta, Akshar Colony,
Road No. 1,

Opposite Datta Tekadi, Islampur.Waiwa,

Sangli, Maharashtra
…..RESPONDENTS

(The above are the registered addresses of the parties)

 REVISION APPLICATION AGAINST
ORDER DATED 11/01/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP:

The Applicant states and submits as under:

1.The Applicant states that vide common

order dated 11/01/2019 STM Nos. 2735 of

2017, 2736 of 2017, 2737 of 2017 and

2842 of 2018 have been refused to be

admitted to register on account of

failure of the Applicant to clear

objections raised by the Learned

Registrar.

2.The Applicant states that the Appeal

was filed against the judgement and

decree dated 23/03/2017. As there was

delay of ___ days in filing the Appeal

an application for condonation of delay

came to be filed being STM No. ___ of

2017. Since the appeal was not filed in

 time, the same bears STM No. 2735 of

2017.

3.The Applicant states that the Applicant

had appointed Adv. ______ to file the

above appeal and the presence of the

Applicant was not necessary for filing

of the appeal and for processing the

appeal in the Registry.

4.The Applicant states that from the

common order it appears that the said

advocate did not appear at the hearing

and had taken ample opportunities for

clearing the objections, which were not

cleared despite opportunities leading

to dismissal of the STM Nos. by

refusing to admit the STM Nos. to

register.

5.The Applicant states that the

objections raised reveals that the

original Defendant No. 2 Mr. Eric

Sequiera who died after passing of the

Impugned Judgement and Decree was not

 shown in the memo of appeal as being

represented as his Legal Heirs. The

Applicant states that the Applicant

does not have knowledge about the legal

aspects of the matter and had left it

to its advocate to file the appeal in a

proper format.

6.The Applicant states that it appears

that upon realizing this, an

application came to filed bringing LR’s

of Late Eric Sequeira on record as

Respondent Nos. 2 (a) to 2 (d) on

24/08/2017. It appears that the details

of the LR’s were not properly mentioned

in the Application, resulting in

raising of further objections that the

details of the proposed LR’s such as

their age, occupation, address was not

mentioned.

7.The Applicant states that the above

objections were not cleared within time

resulting in dismissal of the STM

Numbers.
8.The Applicant states that the Applicant

had entrusted all the case papers to

their advocate, who apparently on a

misconstruction of law filed the above

appeal without showing or without

showing or without impleading the Legal

Heirs of original Defendant No. 2 to

the Memo of appeal and thereafter did

not furnish complete details of the

proposed legal heirs.

9.The Applicant states that the Applicant

have done everything possible from

their end and nothing remains to be

done by the Applicant. The Applicant

should not suffer on account of a

genuine mistake of their advocate. The

Applicant states that the Applicant had

no papers with them in order to follow

up the matter in any manner or to know

the status of the matter. The Applicant

states that the Applicant thereafter

engaged the services of another

advocate, who applied for copy of the

entire case papers on 11/03/2019 and

 the copies were delivered on

12/03/2019.

10. The Applicant states that Adv. ____

who was entrusted with filing of the

Revision in the chamber of ____ did not

file the Revision application in time

after getting the papers as her father

was not well and she was tending to

him. Accordingly the filing of the

Revision upon obtaining of the papers

also got delayed. Thereafter the

vacations commenced and Adv. Rao was on

leave from 26/04/2019.

11. The present Revision is being file

don the first day of re-opening and as

such the delay of ___ days in filing

the present Revision Petition may be

condoned.

12. In view of the above it is prayed

as under:

a.This Hon’ble Court be pleased to

quash and set aside the order

dated 11/01/2019 by condoning a

 delay of ____ days in filing the

Revision Petition.

b.Such other and further order

deemed fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the

case be passed.

Place: Panaji, Goa

Date: 03/06/2019

Adv. For Applicant