Second appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the rejection of the appellant's claim for condonation of delay. The court held that the health of one appellant did not constitute sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
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.
12-SA-716-2023.doc
Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.716 OF 2023
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17974 OF 2023
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.716 OF 2023
NIKITA KAILAS DARADE
Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2023.12.22 11:14:19 +0530
Rajaram Govind Kalbhor … Appellant V/s. Ganpat Mugutrav Kalbhor … Respondents
Mr. Girish R. Agrawal a/w Ms. Naina Boraste for the Appellant-Applicant.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 21, 2023
P.C.:
1
12-SA-716-2023.doc
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether theExplanation furnished for the delay in filing the second appeal, alleging unwellness of one appellant, constitutes a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NIKITA KAILAS DARADE
Ganpat Mugutrav Kalbhor
AMIT BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
