Appellant sought condonation of 4 years 25 days delay in filing a second appeal in a recovery suit. The court rejected the plea, holding that stated financial difficulties and intervening litigation do not satisfy the requirements for condonation.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; second appeal stands 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.
911-ia-2142-2020.doc
SA Pathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.2975 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2142 OF 2020 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.2975 OF 2020
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2079 OF 2020 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.2975 OF 2020
Vikram Keru Nawale … Applicant V/s. Ramchandra Shankar Mulik … Respondent
Mr. Sushant Prathune, for Applicant/Appellant.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2023
P.C.:
1
911-ia-2142-2020.doc
recovery of amount. The Trial Court decreed the suit.
2
911-ia-2142-2020.doc
challenging decree passed in earlier suit and filing of appeal against dismissal of such suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be termed as bona fide proceeding under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, reason stated in the application for condonation of delay, explained delay of 4 years, 25 days cannot be termed as sufficient cause. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Resultantly, the second appeal stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant's explanation of financial crisis and depression regarding the 4 year 25 days delay constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Whether proceedings challenging the decree and filing an appeal against dismissal of a subsequent suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be termed as bona fide proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitati
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vikram Keru Nawale
Ramchandra Shankar Mulik
Amit Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
