Single judge application seeking condonation of 1557-day delay to file a second appeal. Court dismissed it as applicants failed to provide acceptable explanation for inaction and did not protest alleged advocate negligence.
Condonsation of delay sought in second appeal application dismissed.
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.
1 MCA 217/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2013 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 319 OF 2013.
SMT. YESHUMATI N. GAONKAR (SINCE EXPIRED THORUGH LR'S AND 5 ORS.)
….. APPLICANTS.
Versus
SHRI PRAKASH T. GOANKAR AND 27 ORS.
….. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A. Kakodkar, Advocate appearing for the applicants.
Mr. A. Kansar, Advocate appearing for the respondents.
Coram:- K. L. Wadane, J.
Reserved on:- 11th February, 2016. Pronounced on:- 18th February, 2016.
ORDER
This application is filed by the applicants for condoning the delay of 1557 days caused for filing an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-FTC at Panaji dated 13.7.2007.
The applicants are illiterate with little or no education. The applicants had engaged services of Advocate Braganza from Mapusa who initially was attending the suit and was being assisted by the Advocate S. Chodankar. Mr. S. Chodankar, Advocate started attending
2 MCA 217/2013
the Court when he set up his independent practice and he was exclusively looking after the suit. The suit of respondent nos. 1 to 7 was dismissed by the trial Court and Mr. Chodankar, informed the applicants that they have succeeded in the suit. The applicants recently came to know that the trial Court has also dismissed the counter claim of the applicants. But this fact was never informed to them by their advocate. The respondents have filed first appeal and applicants were represented by the same Advocate Mr. Chodankar. After the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.7.2007, the applicants advocate informed them that they have succeeded in the First Appeal. The applicants being illiterate never read the impugned judgment and decree but blindly believed in their Advocate.
3 MCA 217/2013
Second Appeal for which delay has been caused as referred above.
4 MCA 217/2013
applicants is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
There is delay of more than five years in presenting the appeal and there are 6 applicants however, none of them have inquired about the decision of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court for more than 5 years. This conduct of the applicants appears to be unacceptable because in ordinary circumstances no man of ordinary prudence can keep silence for more than 5 years. The dispute relates to the immovable property. Inaction on the part of the applicants to keep the track on the proceedings appears to be unacceptable.
5 MCA 217/2013
settled that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Court should not adopt the hyper technical view. At the same time, it is also well settled that delay caused in filing the appeal has to be explained properly. Even unexplained delay of short period cannot be condoned. Length of the delay is not the matter, acceptability of the explanation is only criteria. Herein, in the present case, the explanation offered by the applicants for such a long delay is not at all acceptable.
K. L. WADANE, J.
vn*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 1557 days in filing a second appeal is permissible on the ground of advocate's negligence despite lack of protest by applicants
Whether the explanation for non-inquiry into court orders by appellants for five years is acceptable
Whether lack of technicality justifies condonation of unexplained long delay without proper cause
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. KrishnamurthyReferred¶24
N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998)7 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Sangita C. Thakur Vs. Dnyansagar Education SocietyReferred¶25
Sangita C. Thakur Vs. Dnyansagar Education Society, 2015(3) ALL MR 130
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yeshumati N. Gaonkar
Prakash T. Goankar
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
