Petitioners challenged the First Appellate Court's condonation of 322 days' delay in filing an appeal against a decree, arguing the reasons were false. The Court found the appellate order balanced, having imposed Rs.10,000/- costs, declined to interfere, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
14.wp.15948.23.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15948 OF 2023
Vaijanath Dattatraya Rukari and Ors...Petitioners
Versus
Sandip Balasaheb Bhintade and Anr...Respondents
Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w. Namit Pansare, Advocates for Petitioners.CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:JANUARY 03, 2024.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners.
2. The impugned order dated 16.02.2023 has been passed by
the First Appellate Court condoning the delay of 322 days in filing the
First Appeal by the original Applicants i.e. Respondents before me. The
reasons given in the Application for seeking condonation of delay has
been considered by the learned Trial Court and that consideration is
reflected in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. It has also been
fairly pointed out by Mr. Patil that the Suit was decreed on 02.07.2016
and during the trial of the Suit also, despite sufficient opportunities
given to the Applicants i.e. Respondents, they did not adduce any
evidence in rebuttal nor cross-examined the Plaintiffs’ witnesses.
1 of 2
14.wp.15948.23.doc
3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that cognizance of this fact has also been taken by the learned Appellate Court and so noted in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order. Though admittedly there is a delay of 322 days, the learned Trial Court has proceeded on the basis that due to the negligence and lethargy of the Advocate, the litigant should not suffer the consequences. Mr. Patil has also pointed out that the reasons advanced by the Applicants i.e. original Defendants are false.
4. However, considering the reasons given by the learned First Appellate Court while disposing of Civil Misc. Application No.543 of 2017, the learned Appellate Court has also granted costs of Rs.10,000/- which is my opinion is therefore a balanced order in the facts of the present case as also in the interest of justice. I see no reason to interfere with the reasons given in the impugned order dated 16.02.2023. The order dated 16.02.2023 is thus upheld and confirmed.
5. Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAYTRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.01.04 12:30:00 +0530
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Should the First Appellate Court's order condoning a 322-day delay in filing the First Appeal be interfered with?
Vaijanath Dattatraya Rukari and Ors
Sandip Balasaheb Bhintade
Anr
Milind N. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court