AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. S. Sonak, J
Heard Mr. Vilas P. Thali, who appears along with Mr. Rajdeep Prabhugaonker for the Petitioner and Mr. G. Monteiro for Respondent No.3.
The challenge, in this Petition, is to the order dated 22nd August 2022 endorsed in the Roznama. The order reads as follows :
“Exhibits:
D-30 Received E-mail from I.P. No. 3. O.P. Filed D-31 Adv. For I.P. No. 3 file application for adjournment. O.P. Application is rejected. As the other I.P. have travelled from Dubai and is schedule to go abroad I.P. No. 3 to remain present on VC for auction if any. If the IP No. 3 fails to remain present on VC the matter shall proceed. D-32 Letter of authority O.P. Filed
Business:
Called out today Adv. G.Monteiro present for the H.O.F and I.P. No. 5 to 9. Adv. C.Dias present for the I.P. No. 11. Adv. S.Mandrekar present for the I.P. No. 3. Matter adj. at 2.30p.m.
Next Purpose:
Auction
Next Hearing date:
24-08-2022.”
The record bears out that on 15th July 2022, the Head of the Family filed an application for licitation. The same was fixed for consideration on 26th July 2022. On that date, the Head of the Family filed an application for issuance of notices to the parties for holding an auction and the matter was then posted for licitation.
The Petitioner has pleaded that on 26th July 2022, “due to certain unforeseen circumstances, the advocate for the Petitioner could not remain present in the court when the matter was called out.”.
The Petitioner has then pleaded that upon checking the CIS System, the Advocate for the Petitioner found out that the matter was posted for auction/licitation on 22th August 2022. Therefore, the Petitioner contacted the Advocate for the Head of the Family and informed him about her inability to travel to India on a short notice. She claimed to have informed the Advocate that she would apply for an adjournment of the auction.
The Petitioner has herself pleaded that on the next date i.e. 6th August 2022, the Advocate for the Head of the Family responded, in writing, that they would be objecting to the application for adjournment should the Petitioner file the same. The Advocate for the Petitioner was also informed that the Head of the Family had booked travel tickets from Dubai to Goa and back to Dubai and that they will not postpone their travel arrangements.
Despite the above clear and unambiguous response, the Petitioner took her chance and on 22nd August 2022 applied for adjournment of the auction. It is on this application that the Inventory Court has made the above referred impugned order.
Mr. Thali submits that the Petitioner has difficulties in obtaining leave, as well as visa. It is for this reason that the adjournment was applied for. He submitted that the impugned order is vague, without reasonable ground and in breach of natural justice. He submitted that this is a case of error apparent on the face of record and if such an error is allowed to persist, the same would cause serious prejudice and irretrievable injury to the interest of the Petitioner.
In my judgment, this Petition is quite misconceived. In the first place, there is no explanation why the Petitioner's Advocate could not remain present on 26th July 2022. Secondly, the Petitioner was clearly and unambiguously informed that any request for adjourn would be opposed on 22nd August 2022. The reason for such opposition was also informed to the Petitioner. The Head of the Family apparently was in Dubai and had made travel arrangements, including booking of tickets to attend the auction on 22nd August 2022. Despite all this, the Petitioner chose to take her chance.
The Inventory Court has been quite indulgent to the Petitioner. The auction was adjourned from 22nd August 2022 to 24th August 2022 to enable the Petitioner to attend by video conferencing. Even this relief was more than in the nature of an indulgence because, the Petitioner had not made out any case for grant of an adjournment as a matter of right.
The grounds about the impugned order being vague or unreasonable or in breach of the principles of natural justice, are incorrect and do not arise in the facts of the present case. More than adequate opportunity was granted to the Petitioner. In any case, the Petitioner is permitted to attend the auction and take part in the auction through video conferencing.
The Petitioner was aware on 6th August 2022 itself that her attempts at seeking an adjournment of the auction on 22nd August 2022 would be resisted. Still, the Petitioner, did not consider it necessary to apply to the Inventory Court in advance and invite an order. Instead, the Petitioner took her chance. The auction is posted today at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Monteiro points out that this Petition was not even signed by the Petitioner and the affidavit, accompanying the Petition, has been sworn by the Petitioner's Advocate. Mr. Thali submits that the Petitioner sent an e-mail copy of this Petition on which she signed. Thereafter, her signature was scanned and sent. The Petition has been filed based on the scanned signature. The Petition, need not been rejected on this ground. However, the Petitioner or her Advocate, should have at least disclosed this procedure in the Petition or by filing some application. From perusal of the Petition, at least, it appeared to me that the Petitioner had actually signed the Petition. Therefore, it is also possible that the Registry thought that the Petitioner has actually signed this Petitioner.
The Petitioner instituted this Petition yesterday and secured circulation. The hearing of the Division Bench had to be interrupted to take up this matter.
For all the above reasons, this Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/-.
Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.