Allowed¶16

Mr. Suresh Rohidas Sonule v. Shree. Markandeya Padmashali Co. Op. Housing Society Limited

Bombay HC28 Jul 2025IA/10046/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court order condoning 22-day delay in filing Appeal From Order (ST) 19143/2025 by Suresh Rohidas Sonule against Shree Markandeya Padmashali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd; advocate absence for niece's marriage, railway tickets annexed, joint signing by two advocates objection overruled, delay condoned, prayer clause (a), listed 16-09-2025 fresh admission; Gauri Godse J.; condonation of delay, limitation, sufficiency of reasons.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 22 days in filing the appeal condoned; application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); appeal listed for 16 September 2025 under the caption 'fresh admission'. ¶16

Mr. Suresh Rohidas Sonule vs Shree. Markandeya Padmashali Co. Op. Housing Society Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURUDate: RAJGURU 2025.07.2914:50:41 +0530

¶2

19-ia-10046-2025-aost-19143-2025.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10046 OF 2025 IN

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER(ST) NO. 19143 OF 2025

¶6

Mr. Suresh Rohidas Sonule … Applicant/Appellant vs. Shree Markandeya Padmashali Co… Respondent operative Housing Society Ltd

¶7

Mr. Santraj Rampyare for Applicant/Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Mohit H. Sant for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 28^th JULY 2025

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This application is for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the appeal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no.2, i.e. the cooperative society has filed a praecipe in the suit supporting the plaintiff; therefore, the contesting party would be only respondent no. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 opposes the delay condonation application on the ground that vague reasons are given for condonation of delay that the applicant’s advocate had proceeded to the native place for attending

¶13

Page no. 1 of 2

¶14

19-ia-10046-2025-aost-19143-2025.doc

¶15

marriage of his niece. He submits that the appeal is filed by two advocates jointly and thus, the reasons stated in the application would not be tenable.

¶16

I have perused the papers of the application. The particulars regarding the absence of the advocate are stated in the application and the copy of the railway tickets is annexed and particulars regarding attending marriage in the village are also stated. Considering the particulars mentioned in the application, the reasons given for condonation of delay are acceptable and justifiable. The objections raised on behalf of respondent no.2 regarding signing of the appeal by two advocates cannot be considered as a ground to disbelieve the reasons stated in the application. The delay is negligible of 22 days. Hence, for the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent no.2, seeks time to take instructions regarding the merits of the appeal.

¶18

List the appeal on 16^th September 2025. To be listed under the caption for ‘fresh admission’.

¶19

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶20

Page no. 2 of 2

Mr. Suresh Rohidas Sonule v. Shree. Markandeya Padmashali Co. Op. Housing Society Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Suresh Rohidas Sonule v. Shree. Markandeya Padmashali Co. Op. Housing Society Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Parshuram Patwardhan vs M/S. Buldhana Urban Co. Op Credit Soc. Ltd.

Link Palace Chs Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Bhila Metkar and Others vs Mrs. Shantabai Daulat Khirkade and Others

Sandeep Deepchand Shah and Anr. vs Pradeep Deepchand Shah and Ors.

Sandeep Deepchand Shah and Anr. vs Pradeep Deepchand Shah and Ors.

Sachin @ Raghu Baburao Kolekar vs State of Maharashtra