In an interim application, the Bombay High Court initially allowed the condonation of a 110-day delay in filing a Second Appeal before officially disposing of the application and listing the appeal for admission.
Condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the Second Appeal allowed and Interim Application disposed of.
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.
18-IA-1648-2024.docx
Neeta Sawant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1648 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL (LODG.) NO. 17132 OF 2023
Sunil Ramchandra Kasar}..Applicant
Appellant/Orig.Resp.
V/S.
Priti Sunil Kasar }..Respondent
Orig. Appellant
Ms Pooja Jadhav, for the Applicant-appellant.
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad,for the Respondent.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 8 APRIL 2024.
P.C. :
1)The application is filed for seeking condonation of delay of
110 days in filing the Second Appeal. The application is opposed by
the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
2)Considering the averments made in the application, so also
the length of delay, in my view, the delay in filing the Appeal deserves
to be condoned. The Interim Application is accordingly allowed by
condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal. The Interim
Application is disposed of.
3)List the Appeal for admission on 30 April 2024.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.04.10 19:15:51 +0530
NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT
___ Page No. 1 of 1____ 8 April 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay of 110 days in filing the Second Appeal deserves condonation.
Sunil Ramchandra Kasar
Sunil Ramchandra Kasar
Priti Sunil Kasar
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court