Dismissed

Dnyandeo Kisan Garje and Others. v. Gangadhar Dasarath Borude and Others

Bombay HC20 Feb 2019FA/267/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil application seeking restoration of a dismissed appeal. The court refused to condone a delay of over fourteen years as no sufficient reason was assigned. Consequently, the pending appeal against the insurance company was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration dismissed; Appeal against Respondent No.2 dismissed; Civil application disposed of.

Dnyandeo Kisan Garje and Others. Vs Gangadhar… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

FA 267/2000

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.267 OF 2000 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14197 OF 2018

¶6

1. Dnyandeo Kisan Garje
Age: 35 yrs, Occ.: Labour
R/o Ghotan Tq. Shevgaon
District Ahmednagar.
2.Bhausaheb Dnyandeo Garje
Age 14 yrs, Occu. Education
3.Mina Dnyandeo Garje
Age 12 yrs, Occu. Education
4.Leela Dnyandeo Garje
Age 10 yrs, Occu. Education
Applicant No.1 for himself
& on behalf of Nos. 2 to 4. = APPELLANTS
 (Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
1.Gangadhar Dashrath Borude
(Appeal stood dismissed
as against Resp.No.1)
2.The New India Insurance Co.
Branch Manager Abott Building
1st floor near Ashoka Hotel
Ahmednagar. = RESPONDENT/S
----
Shri Amol P. Khedkar, Adv. for Appellants;
Shri MM Ambhore, Adv. For Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 20th February,2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.Heard Shri Khedkar, learned counsel

¶7

appearing for applicants-appellants and Shri

¶8

FA 267/2000

¶9

(2)

¶10

Ambhore, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 –
insurance company. The appeal stood dismissed as
against Respondent No.1 on 18th November, 2003.

¶11

2.Anapplicationisfiledseeking

¶12

condonation of delay of more than fourteen years
caused in filing an application, seeking
restoration of the appeal against Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 is owner of the offending vehicle
which was insured with Respondent No.2 insurance
company.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the applicants-
appellants, submitted that, at the time of filing
of the appeal, present applicants were minor and
even after they became major, since they were not
aware of the pending proceeding, they could not
take appropriate steps to prosecute the said

¶14

appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that
on merits, the applicants have a very good case and
as such the appeal needs to be restored against

¶15

Respondent No.1. The learned counsel further
submitted that in the event any liability arises
against the insurance company, which is contesting

¶16

the present appeal, the applicants undertake not to

¶17

claim interest on the said amount of liability of

¶18

FA 267/2000

¶19

(3)

¶20

the entire intervening period. The learned

¶21

counsel, in the circumstances, prayed for condoning
the delay which has occurred in filing the
restoration application.

¶22

4.Shri Ambhore, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.2 - insurance company, has
opposed for condoning the huge delay. The learned
counsel submitted that at the time of filing of the
claim petition in the year 1991 itself, age of
present applicant No.2 – Bhausaheb was stated as 14
years; whereas ages of present applicant Nos.3 and
4 were stated respectively as 12 years and 10
years. The learned counsel submitted that in the
year 2000 itself, the aforesaid applicants had
become major. The learned counsel submitted that
when all the applicants had become major in the
year 2000 itself, the contention raised by the
applicants is apparently unacceptable. The learned
counsel submitted that in the entire application,

¶23

no reason has been assigned explaining the
inordinate delay, and as such, the application
deserves to be rejected.

¶24

6.I have given due consideration to the

¶25

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

¶26

FA 267/2000

¶27

(4)

¶28

for the respective parties. I have carefully

¶29

perused the contents of the application.
Apparently, I agree with the objection raised by
Shri Ambhore, learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

insurance company, that, the contents of the
application no where reveal any cogent and
sufficient reason for occurrence of such huge delay

¶31

of more than fourteen years. The material on
record shows that the appeal was registered in the
year 2000. It is stated in the application that
applicant No.1 died on 6th July, 1998. It is thus
evident that the appeal was registered after his

¶32

death, meaning thereby it was registered at the
instance of the remaining claimants. Considering
the facts, as aforesaid, the contention that the

¶33

applicants were not aware of the pending
proceeding, is falsified. Further, it is no where
mentioned as to how the applicants came to know
about the appeal which was pending and remained

¶34

unattended for a long period of more than fourteen
years. In absence of any reason stated by the
applicants, the delay cannot be condoned. I am,

¶35

therefore, not inclined to allow the present
application. In the circumstances, the application

¶36

FA 267/2000

¶37

(5)

¶38

is rejected.

¶39

7.In view of the fact that the appeal has
been dismissed against Respondent No.1 , i.e. owner
of the offending vehicle, the appeal filed against
Respondent No.2 - insurance company, also deserves
to be dismissed. The application as well as the

¶40

appeal both, therefore, stand dismissed. Pending

¶41

civil application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶42

(P.R.BORA)
 JUDGE

¶43

bdv/

Dnyandeo Kisan Garje and Others. v. Gangadhar Dasarath Borude and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyandeo Kisan Garje and Others. v. Gangadhar Dasarath Borude and Others

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

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Tukaram Manikrao Patil (Died) Thr Lrs Shashikala and Ors.

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Gmidc Aurangabad Vs Prabhakar Kashinath Kamathe and Ors.

Tukaram Bhaga Bande (Dead) Thr Lrs Skhubai and Ors. Vs the Ex. Engineer, Urdhawa Pravara Dam Div. Thr the Gmidc, Aurangabad and Anr.

Taslim Khadir Shaikh Vs Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Branch Manager, and Ors.

Shital Vasant Kalyankar and Ors. Vs M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its M.D. and Anr.

Laxman Nilu Kadam Vs Executive Engineer Nimna Dhudhana Project Selu and Ors.