New Delhi3 minutes ago
- copy link
The petitioner’s counsel Viraj Kadam pointed out that unfortunately the person who brought the matter from the Lower Court to the Supreme Court is not alive to hear the news of consent to the hearing. (signal picture)
The 108-year-old man kept fighting the court for 53 years for justice in the land dispute case. By the time the Supreme Court agreed to hear the petition filed in the case, he died. The petition filed in 1968 was dismissed in the Bombay High Court after being pending for 27 years. SC agrees to hear Sopan Narsingh Gaikwad’s plea on July 12. The petitioner’s counsel Viraj Kadam pointed out that unfortunately the person who brought the matter from the Lower Court to the Supreme Court is not alive to hear the news of consent to the hearing. Now this matter will be seen by his legal heirs.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy issued notices on applications for condoning the delay of 1,467 days and 267 days in filing appeals in the Supreme Court against the High Court judgments dated 23 October 2015 and 13 February 2019. Is. SC has also called for a reply from the respondents in eight weeks. Justice Chandrachud said that we are taking cognizance of the fact that the age of the petitioner is 108 years and the High Court did not take up the matter on the basis of merit. Also, the case was dismissed on the ground of absence of counsel.
What did the court say in its decision
The bench said that the petitioner is from rural area and the lawyer may not have been able to contact him after the dismissal of the case in 2015. The Court took cognizance of the information furnished by Kadam on behalf of the petitioner and noted that the decision of the Lower Court was reversed by the first appellate court and the second appeal was pending in the Bombay High Court since 1988.
What did the lawyer argue
Kadam said the second appeal was deferred on August 19, 2015. After this, on 22 August 2015, the lawyers of both the parties appeared before the High Court and requested to postpone the matter for getting directions. The second appeal was deferred on 3 September 2015 and thereafter the matter was taken up and dismissed on 23 October 2015.
When the Bench asked whether the petitioner had applied for restoration of appeal, Kadam pointed out that he had applied for condonation of delay in applying for restoration of second appeal but that too was dismissed on February 13, 2019.
what is the whole matter
Gaikwad and others had filed a second appeal in the High Court challenging the decision of the Latur Hearing Court in the first appeal on 17 December 1987, while the first decision was given by the Hearing Court on 10 September 1982. Gaikwad had bought the land in 1968 under a registered sale agreement but later it was found that its original owner had taken a loan from the bank against the land. When the original owner could not repay the loan, the bank issued a notice to Gaikwad to attach the property.
Gaikwad then went to the lower court against the original owner and the bank. He said that he was the bona fide buyer of the land and the bank could recover the loan amount by selling the other property of the original owner. The Court accepted Gaikwad’s argument and ruled in his favor on 10 September 1982, against which the original owner filed the first appeal and in 1987 the judgment was reversed. Gaikwad filed a second appeal against this in the High Court in 1988, which was dismissed in 2015.