Allowed

Mr. Mallinath Kadappa Hanji v. Mrs. Jyosthna Mallinath Hanji

Bombay HC21 Jun 2023IA/1233/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an interim application to condone the delay in preferring a civil appeal. The delay was justified based on advice received and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, leading to the appointment of a date for registering the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The delay in preferring the appeal was condoned; the appeal is to be registered and listed for admission on 19th July, 2023.

Mr. Mallinath Kadappa Hanji Vs Mrs. Jyosthna… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

51-IA1233-2023INAOST3508-23.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1233 OF 2023 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 3508 OF 2023

¶6

Mallinath Kadappa Hanji ...Applicant Versus Jyosthna Mallinath Hanji …Respondent

¶7

Mr. Prashant Raut, for the Applicant. Mr. Anoop Patil, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 21^st JUNE, 2023

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This application is preferred to condone the delay in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13^th July, 2021 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Gadhinglaj, in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020, whereby the appeal came to be partly allowed and the HMP No.191 of 2019 remanded back to the trial court for decision in accordance with law after setting aside the judgment and decree passed therein dated 6^th November, 2019.

¶12

Initially, the appellant had preferred a second appeal against the said judgment and order. Since an order of remand

¶13

1/2

¶14

51-IA1233-2023INAOST3508-23.DOC

¶15

is appelable under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the second appeal came to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate proceedings. Assigning the said cause, the applicant has preferred this application seeking condonation of delay.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the respondent resisted the application.

¶17

The facts are self-evident. The reasons assigned by the applicant for the delay appear to be justifiable, as the second appeal was preferred on the advice of the Advocate. In any event, the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act come into play.

¶18

Hence, to advance the cause of substantive justice, the

¶19

delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned.

¶20

Thus, the application stands allowed.

¶21

The delay in preferring the appeal stands condoned.

¶22

Appeal be registered and listed for admission on 19^th July, 2023.

¶23

Ad-interim protection, granted by this Court, shall continue to operate till next date.

¶24

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶25

2/2

Mr. Mallinath Kadappa Hanji v. Mrs. Jyosthna Mallinath Hanji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mallinath Kadappa Hanji v. Mrs. Jyosthna Mallinath Hanji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Garware Fullflex India Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Sharayu Madhusudan Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Infonet Bpo Service Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Samsher Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs M/S. Wasp Pumps (Pvt) Ltd., and Anr.

Sanjay Baburao Sonawale Vs the Commissioner, State Co-Operative Election Authority and Ors.

Sanjay Baburao Sonawale Vs the Commissioner, State Co-Operative Election Authority and Ors.