Second appeal dismissed against an order rejecting a civil miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay. Court held no substantial question of law arose and disposed of the accompanying civil application.
Civil Miscellaneous Application rejected; Second Appeal dismissed; Civil Application disposed of.
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.
sa781-16.doc
1/3
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.781 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1370 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.781 OF 2016
Dhundappa Gurulingappa Durunkar …Appellant vs.
Arun Vitthal Mane And Anr. …Respondents
…. Mr. P.B. Kulkarni, for the Appellant.
Ms. Geeta Mulekar, for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED : 17 JANUARY 2017
P.C. :
. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
sa781-16.doc
2/3
sg
District Judge after setting out cogent reasons. It was noticed by the learned District Judge that the Appellant was very much in the knowledge of the judgment and order of the Trial Court. He had appeared from time to time in the execution proceedings filed by the Respondent for execution of the judgment and order of the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted for perusal of this Court a roznama of the execution proceedings. The roznama shows that the notice of the execution application was served on the Appellant on 28 October 2014. The Appellant appeared thereafter before the executing court. The Appellant filed his vakalatnama before the executing court on 24 November 2014 and had also applied for time. He, thereafter, appeared on a number of occasions and applied for further time. The Appellant was allowed by the first Appellate Court to lead evidence for explanation of the delay. He filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-inchief. In his cross-examination the Appellant accepted that he had approached his lawyer regarding the pending suit before the Trial Court and that he was informed of the decree of the trial court on 7 February 2014. He even asked for a copy of the judgment and order, which was furnished and also read out to him. He also confirmed that he had no grievance against his Advocate for not having filed the appeal in time. On this evidence, the learned District Judge held that there was no cause made out explaining the delay of 662 days (the appeal having been filed on 5 January 2016) and, accordingly, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Application of the Appellant. No substantial question of law arises from this decision.
sa781-16.doc
3/3
sg
a lenient view and allow his appeal after imposing costs. It is not possible to entertain such plea, when the Second Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
( S.C. GUPTE, J. )
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay for filing a second appeal was legally sustainable.
Dhundappa Gurulingappa Durunkar
Arun Vitthal Mane
S.C. GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
