The Division Bench rejected the prayer to condone delay in the appeal citing inordinate lapse without cogent reasons. It dismissed the appeal and expedited the hearing of the underlying suit.
Prayer for condoning delay rejected; appeal dismissed; hearing of the suit expedited.
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.
rng
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2721 OF 2009
Kilachand Fekuram Yadav .. Appellant
Dudhnath Kallu Yadav & ors .. Respondents
(No.1.Orig.Plff
Nos.2 to 25 Orig
Defts)
Nos.2 to 4 & 6 to
25.)
Mr.J.Rais i.b.Mr.Yadunath Choudhari for Appellant
Ms.P.Dedhia i.b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co for Respondent no.
1
CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR &
R.V.MORE,JJ
DATED: November 30, 2009
P.C.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondents.
2.In our view, no ground is made out for condoning
the delay in filing the appeal. We have heard learned
counsel for the appellant on merits in order to find out
whether any interference is required in appeal.
Considering the reasonings given by the learned Single
Judge in our view, even on merits the appellant has no
case. The appellant prayed before the learned Single
Judge by way of Notice of Motion No.949 of 2005 for
- 2 -
delition of property from the present proceedings and the
status quo order dated 31.5.2000 may be vacated. The
learned Single Judge has observed that the order of
status quo was granted as back as in the year 2000 and
the same is not required to be vacated after such a long
period as the question involved in the Notice of motion
is required to be decided in the suit itself.
3.Considering the said aspect as well as considering
the fact that there is an inordinate delay even in
preferring the present appeal for which no cogent reasons
have been given the prayer for condoning the delay is
rejected. Hearing of the suit is expedited and the
learned Single Judge may try to dispose of the suit
preferably within a period of one year from today.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of
P.B.Majmudar, J
R.V.More, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable.
Whether interference is required in the appeal on merits.
Kilachand Fekuram Yadav
Dudhnath Kallu Yadav & ors
P.B. Majmudar
R.V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court