Appeal challenging dismissal of a restoration application for an appeal dismissed for default. The High Court held that since no delay condonation application accompanied the late restoration application despite notice, its dismissal under Section 3 of the Limitation Act was correct.
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.
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE SANJAY Date: SONAWANE 2024.03.04 Chitra Sonawane 1 14:56:30 41-AO-568-2023.doc +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Appeal from Order No.568 of 2023
Chagan Rajaram Mahadik
Age:75, Residing at B/101,
Akshata Apartment Chandan
Wadi, Almeida Road,
Thane (West), Thane-400602.... Appellant.
Vs.
Vijay Kashinath Tetambe
Age : 67, Residing at
Shivadip at Markandi, Chiplun
District-Ratnagiri, Pin code-415605...Respondent.
Mr Vidyadhar Raut for appellant.
Mr Rajesh Sahani i/by Vijayprakash Yadav for respondent.
Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.
Date : 23 February 2024.
P.C. :-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.The appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside
order of dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2020, for
default on 30.10.2021, passed by the learned District Judge,
Chiplun on 28.03.2023, observing therein that the application
Chitra Sonawane 2 41-AO-568-2023.doc
for restoring the appeal should have been filed within 30
days from the date of dismissal, under Article 122 of the
Limitation Act. The restoration application was filed before
the District Judge, Chiplun on 28.03.2023 i.e. after 1 year 3
months and 28 days. The said application was not
accompanied with the delay condonation application. The
applicant was informed by the learned District Court that
proceeding cannot be registered unless it is accompanied with
delay condonation application showing sufficient cause.
Despite this, applicant has not preferred any delay
condonation application. Resultantly, the office of District
Judge has taken objection about limitation. Since the
application for restoration was not accompanied with delay
condonation application, the learned District Judge dismissed
the same under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. There
appears no infirmity in the order and same stands confirmed.
In view of this, the appeal from order stands dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Was the District Judge's dismissal of the restoration application, filed beyond the limitation period without any delay condonation application, sustainable?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chagan Rajaram Mahadik
Vijay Kashinath Tetambe
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court