108-yr-old dies just before SC admits plea

New Delhi, July 21: A 108-year-old man did not live to see that the Supreme Court has admitted his appeal in a land dispute case he had been pursuing since 1968 and had remained pending before the Bombay High Court for 27 year before being dismissed.

On July 12 this year, the apex court agreed to hear the appeal after Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad’s counsel pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be viewed from the perspective that the aged petitioner belonged to a rural area of Maharashtra and learned of the high court verdict much later, and after that he got stuck due to the onset of Covid-19 pandemic.

The petitioner’s counsel Viraj Kadam said, unfortunately, the man, who pursued his case right from trial court to Supreme Court was not alive to hear that his matter has been agreed to be heard.

“He had expired before the court took up the matter on July 12 but the information about his demise from the rural area came just after the hearing. He will be now represented through legal heirs.”

A bench of Justices D.Y.

Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy has issued notice on the application for condonation of delay of 1,467 days and 267 days in moving the top court against the high court orders dated October 23, 2015 and February 13, 2019.

The top court also sought response from opposite parties in eight weeks.

Justice Chandrachud said, we have to take note of the fact that the petitioner is 108-years-old and moreover the High Court had not dealt with the merit of the case and the matter was dismissed due to non-appearance of the advocates.

The bench said that as the person is from rural area the lawyers concerned may not have been able to trace him after the case was dismissed in 2015.

It took note of the submission made by Kadam for the petitioner that the decree which was passed by the trial court was reversed by the first appellate court and the second appeal before the Bombay High Court was pending since 1988.

Kadam submitted that on August 19, 2015, the second appeal was adjourned, and, thereafter, both sets of counsel appeared before the high court on August 22, 2015 and sought an adjournment to seek instructions.

The Second Appeal was adjourned to September 3,

2015, but was eventually taken up on October 23,

2015 and was dismissed in default, Kadam said.

The bench asked whether the petitioner had moved a restoration application to which Kadam said that they had filed an application for condonation of delay caused in filing application for restoration of Second Appeal but it was also dismissed in February 13, 2019.