This High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay exceeding 432 days in filing a second appeal. The court held that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause or due diligence, rejecting medical explanations and timing irregularities.
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 BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2015
IN
STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3366 OF 2014
MR. FRANCISCO XAVIER DIAS AND ANR. ... Applicant Versus MRS. OLGA CABRAL AND 24 ORS. ... Respondent
Shri Siddesh Shet, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.
Date:8th July, 2015
P.C:
This is an application for condonation of delay of 432 days in preferring a second appeal.
MCA/12/2015
2
MCA/12/2015
3
first week of May, 2014, the applicant no. 1 collected the certified copy from his Advocate, when he was advised to visit the office of the Advocate in the third week of June, 2014. Accordingly, when the applicant no. 1, visited the office of the Advocate, he was informed that the Advocate would prepare the brief. It was contended that due to pain, the applicant no. 1, could not visit his Advocate's office. He was admitted in Trimurti Hospital from 12.08.2014 to 14.08.2014. Thereafter, the applicant no. 1 was advised not to travel during monsoon. It was only in December, 2014 that the applicant no. 1 after knowing that his appeal was time barred, filed the appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
MCA/12/2015
4
MCA/12/2015
5
returned, is conspicuously absent in the application. Further, according to the applicants, the applicant no. 2 had returned back to India, sometime in the month of July, 2014. The fact remains that the explanation for not filing the appeal, during this period, only pertains to medical ground of applicant no. 2 and there is no reason shown, much less plausible one, as what prevented the applicant no. 1, who was looking after the litigation, for not taking steps for filing the appeal.
MCA/12/2015
6
C. V. BHADANG, J.
EV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause for condonation of a 432-day delay in filing a second appeal is made out.
Whether applicants have acted with due diligence in preferring the appeal.
MR. FRANCISCO XAVIER DIAS AND ANR.
MRS. OLGA CABRAL AND 24 ORS.
C. V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
