Dismissing this writ petition, the Single Judge upheld the dismissal of an application to condone a 15-year delay in filing an appeal. The petitioner, a purchaser pendent lite, failed to establish sufficient l 콘텐츠 reasons for the delay.
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.
wp-4616-12.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4616 of 2012
Nanda Vijaykukar Manchanda @ Nanda Eknath Ganeshkar
: Petitioner
versus
Basavraj Yashwant Kore & Ors.
: Respondents
Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar for the Petitioner
CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : JULY 27, 2012.
P.C.
1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 342012 passed by the Learned Adhoc District Judge3, Solapur, by which order, the Application for condonation of delay of about 15 years in filing the Appeal against the decree dated 1641996 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.168 of 1990 came to be rejected.
2 The said decree is in a suit wherein the vendor of the Petitioner herein was the Defendant No.3. The alleged purchase by the Petitioner of the property in question is on 2571991 i.e. pending the said suit and therefore the Petitioner is a purchaser pendent lite, the Petitioner has filed her own suit being Special Civil Suit No.231 of 2008 for a declaration that
the said decree is not binding on him. It was the case of the Petitioner in
MMJ
1/3
the instant Application that she was not a party to the earlier suit and that she became aware of the decree in the year 2006. The said Application of
the Petitioner was opposed by the decree holders by filing a reply, it was their case that from the record it can be seen that the Petitioner herein had knowledge of the decreeing of the said Regular Suit No.168 of 1990 on 16111996 as the Plaintiffs in the said suit had filed an application on 21 11997 to get their names mutated.
3 The Lower Appellate Court has considered the said Application for condonation of delay. The Lower Appellate Court refused to accept the case of the Petitioner that she had acquired knowledge of the decree in the year 2006 and on account of wrong advice given by her earlier Advocate she had filed the suit in the year 2008 for a declaration that the said decree is
not binding on her. The Trial Court was of the view that the said fact cannot be taken advantage of by the Petitioner. The Lower Appellate court held that it was the Petitioner's own case in Special Civil Suit No.231 of 2008 that she acquired knowledge of the decree in the year 2002. The Lower Appellate Court therefore did not deem it fit to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner. In the conspectus of the facts involved where admittedly the Petitioner is a purchaser pendent lite and who can be said to be aware of the decree passed if not in the year 1996 but at least in
2/3
MMJ
the year 2002 as per her own case. The Application filed for condonation of the said huge delay without any justifiable reasons mentioned therein, was rightly rejected by the Lower Appellate Court. In my view the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court does not merit any interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R M SAVANT, J)
3/3
MMJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the rejection of an application for condonation of a 15-year delay in filing an appeal.
Nanda Vijaykukar Manchanda
Basavraj Yashwant Kore
R M SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
