Dismissed

Tanhubai Kedu Sangale v. Vimal Sunil Dongre and Another

Bombay HC22 Jan 2014WP/660/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal, finding that the reason relied upon for delay (hospitalisation in 2010) was factually false compared to the affidavit and hospital records indicating hospitalisation in October 2010.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.

Tanhubai Kedu Sangale Vs Vimal Sunil Dongre… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2014

¶6

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

Mr.S.B.Kadu, advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶10

 Date : 22.01.2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is allowed. Mr.Kadu, learned counsel submits that there is inordinate delay of 137 days in filing the appeal. The reason is also not properly stated. In fact, wrong reason is mentioned. Affidavit of Sou. Bababai Raghunath Chakne is filed and she has stated on oath that she was hospitalised in October 2010. In fact, the condonation of delay is being claimed for the days of the year 2012 and the witness for whom the Respondent says she had to stay back herself states that she was hospitalised in October 2010. On this false reason, the delay could not have been condoned.

¶14

I have gone through the order. The Court has considered the documents i.e. the medical papers and also the deposition. In

¶15

¶16

fact, the said witness has specifically stated that she was hospitalised in Sai Suman Hospital and since June, 2012 she was outdoor patient of the said Hospital and the Respondent had to look after her. The said evidence is not shattered. Even the medical papers are relied by the Court. The Court has exercised the discretion in a plausible manner.

¶17

In light of that, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶19

Dt.22.01.2014. asp/office/wp660.14

¶20

Tanhubai Kedu Sangale v. Vimal Sunil Dongre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanhubai Kedu Sangale v. Vimal Sunil Dongre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Tatya Gore, L.Rs. Ramdas and Others Vs Vishwambhar Sakharam Thigale and Others

Subhash Sitaram Haran and Others Vs Pandurang Sitaram Haram

Chotelal Laxman Killedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandipan Haribhau Chothave Vs M/S Pratik Construction and Others

Baban Balanna Gawali and Others Vs Banarasi Mahadev Lagad and Others

Nitin Engineering Works Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others