The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court held the lower court's decision was correct as the petitioner failed to prove he was bed-ridden due to illness.
Writ petition rejected; order refusing to condone delay upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2457 OF 2003
Shri Narhari Ganpat Padol ..Petitioner
V/s
Smt.Kamalbai Dhondiram Khirkade ..Respondent
Shri Amol Mhatre i/b P.K.Dhakephalkar for Petitioner
Ms Smita Mane i/b Shri Praful Shah for Respondent
CORAM:S.R.SATHE,J.
DATED:9th Jan. 2006
P.C.:-
. Heard both the learned Advocates.
. Petitioner the original applicant in Misc.
Application No.2549 of 2001 has filed this writ
petition against the order whereby his application for
condoning delay was rejected by the Court of 2nd
Additional District Judge, Nasik.
. Admittedly there was delay of about 74 days on the
part of the applicant in filing the appeal against the
decree passed against him. According to him suit for
specific performance was decreed against him on
13-3-2000. However, he received the knowledge about
the same on 26-6-2001. He applied for certified copy
on 20-7-2001 and received copy on 19-9-2001 and then
filed the appeal. It is his case that he was suffered
from jaundice and as such there was delay in filing the
appeal.
. From perusal of the judgment passed by the 2nd
Additional District Judge, Nasik it is very clear that
the applicant was served with the execution proceedings
arising out of the said decree dated on 13-3-2001 and
had in fact appeared in the execution court and sought
time. So, his case that he got knowledge about the
case already decreed on 26-6-2001 is totally false.
Even thereafter he did not take immediate steps and
kept quite till 20-7-2001. There is nothing on record
to indicate that he was bed ridden as a result of
jaundice and was not in a position to move the Court.
The lower Court has taken into consideration all the
facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on
record and has rightly held that the applicant has
failed to give any satisfactory explanation about the
delay in filing the appeal. The order passed by the
lower Court is legal and correct. There is absolutely
no necessity to exercise the special powers in writ
jurisdiction and to interfere with the said order.
. Hence writ petition is rejected.
(S.R.SATHE,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's rejection of the petitioner's application for condoning delay in filing an appeal.
Whether the petitioner provided satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Narhari Ganpat Padol
Smt. Kamalbai Dhondiram Khirkade
S.R.Sathe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court