Allowed

Maroti Kondiba Dhawale v. Babarao Mahadji Mudhal Died

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024CA/3608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 218 days in filing a second appeal over agricultural land, attributed to the Advocate's failure to communicate the District Court judgment. The court found sufficient cause shown and allowed the delay with a cost of Rs.3000 to respondents, directing registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

218-day delay condoned subject to Rs.3000 cost to respondents within four weeks; appeal to be registered on payment.

Maroti Kondiba Dhawale Vs Babarao Mahadji… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

916-ca-3608-2023.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3608 OF 2023 IN SAST/8369/2023

¶5

MAROTI KONDIBA DHAWALE VERSUS

¶6

BABARAO MAHADJI MUDHAL DIED

¶7

Mrs. Maya Ramrao Jamdhade, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Govind Rangrao Ingole, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2024.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 218 days caused in filing second appeal.

¶11

Mrs. Jamdhade, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that applicant is rustic person living in village. The Regular Civil Suit No.76/2009 has been decreed against applicant vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2012. He preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.61/2015 before the District Judge-2, Nanded, which came to be dismissed on 13.04.2022. The applicant was not communicated about aforesaid judgment of the District Court by his Advocate. The applicant got knowledge on 29.08.2022. Thereafter, he applied for certified copies and after arranging for expenses filed this appeal. However, in the said process delay of 218 days is caused, which is not intentional.

¶12

The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the application contending that there is inordinate delay of 218 days. The explanation is vague and sans requisite particulars. He would, therefore, submit that applicant

¶13

916-ca-3608-2023.odt

¶14

(2)

¶15

failed to make out sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶16

Having considered submissions advanced, it is apparent that parties are litigating over right in respect of agriculture land. The applicant has stated on oath that there was no communication by Advocate after decision of the District Court. After four months of decision, the applicant came to know about the same and obtained certified copies. The aforesaid statement is not controverted by filing reply. The possibility that applicant spent time in arranging for funds and filing appeal also cannot be ruled out, in absence of reply affidavit. In that view of the matter, case is made out to condone the delay, however, subject to cost to be paid to the respondents. Hence, following order:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

a. Civil Application is allowed.

¶19

b. Delay of 218 days caused in filing the Second Appeal is hereby condoned subject to condition that applicant deposits/pays cost of Rs.3000/- to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

c. On payment of cost, Appeal be registered.

¶21

d. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶22

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶23

Devendra/November-2024

Maroti Kondiba Dhawale v. Babarao Mahadji Mudhal Died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroti Kondiba Dhawale v. Babarao Mahadji Mudhal Died

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

Bhanudas Narayan Kolhe (Dead) Maruti Bhanudas Kolhe Vs Karbhari Narayan Kolhe and Others

Bhagirthibai Murlidhar Gorde Vs Karbhari Narayan Kolhe and Others

Sham Damodar Renavikar and Others Vs Abdul Sattar Mohd Salar and Others

Sujata Suresh Bhosale and Ors. vs The Branch Manager Iffo Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Dashrath Namdeo Sawant vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Abdul Samad Makdoom Saheb Shaikh Vs 1 Parveen Begum Lalkhan Pathan and Ors.