Allowed¶17

Shri. Manikrao S/O. Bhauraoji Kombe v. Smt. Panchfula Wd/O. Vinayakrao Kombe and Other

Bombay HC9 Oct 2025CAS/521/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unopposed condonation of a 606-day delay in filing Second Appeal St. No. 2252 of 2025 (against judgment dated 22.02.2023); grounds were deaths in the family of the original plaintiff Manikrao Bhauraoji Kombe and want of proper advice; delay condoned by Rohit W. Joshi, J. (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench, 09.10.2025) subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to Advocates’ Bar Association, Wardha by 15.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 606 days in filing Second Appeal St. No. 2252 of 2025 condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to Advocates’ Bar Association, Wardha, to be paid on or before 15.11.2025. ¶17

Shri. Manikrao S/O. Bhauraoji Kombe Vs Smt. Panchfula Wd/O. Vinayakrao Kombe and Other — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

52 CAs 521.25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 521 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL ST NO. 2252 OF 2025

¶5

Manikrao Bhauraoji Kombe (dead) through Lr’s Vs.

¶6

Smt. Panchfulla Vinayakrao Kombe and anr.

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Court's or Judge's Order

¶9

Ms. V. G. Khadekar, Advocate for applicants/appellants.

¶10

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 09.10.2025.

¶11

. This is an application for condonation of delay of 606 days in filing the Second Appeal. The applicants have stated that, the judgment was delivered on 22.02.2023 and shortly thereafter, the mother of the applicants expired on 29.05.2023.

¶12

Subsequently, the father, Manikrao, who was the original plaintiff had expired on 09.03.2024. It is stated in the application that the father himself was looking after the litigation. The applicants have stated that after the demise of their father, applicant No.1 contacted the Advocate and collected relevant papers related to the matter.

¶13

It is stated that applicants were not properly advised to file the Second Appeal within a prescribed period of limitation. It is also stated that although father, Manikrao was looking after the litigation for quite some

¶14

2 52 CAs 521.25.odt

¶15

time, he was not able to keep the track of the matter due to old age.

¶16

The statements which are made on oath are not denied by the non-applicants, who had chosen not to appear in the matter despite being served with notice, as is apparent from the office note dated 04.09.2025.

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application the delay of 606 days caused in filing the Second Appeal St. No. 2252 of 2025 is hereby condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to Advocates’ Bar Association, Wardha.

¶18

Cost be paid on or before 15.11.2025.

¶19

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶20

Tanmay...

Shri. Manikrao S/O. Bhauraoji Kombe v. Smt. Panchfula Wd/O. Vinayakrao Kombe and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Manikrao S/O. Bhauraoji Kombe v. Smt. Panchfula Wd/O. Vinayakrao Kombe and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish S/O Bhagwan Kamble Vs Geeta Rajesh Sakharkar and Others

Chhaya Deepak Urkude Vs Ajay Sukhadas Sukhadeve

Mrs. Bhagiratha W/O Santoshji Gaurkar and Ors. Vs Rupchand S/O Pundalik Kadu and Ors.

Smt. Kusum Wd/O Pratap Bhosle vs Parakram S/O. Pratap Bhosle

Shyam Decoration Works, Nagpur Thr. Proprietor Mohd Rafique S/O Shaikh Ismail and Another vs South Central Zone Cultural Center, Nagpur and Others

Shobha Wd/O. Vijayram Pande vs Tulsiram S/O. Kruparam Pande and Others