Ganesh Sarjerao Argade vs 1. Pandit Narayan Sukre and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ganesh Sarjerao Argade vs 1. Pandit Narayan Sukre and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application No.1689 of 2024 allowed: Intervenor Ganesh Sarjerao Argade added as Respondent No.2 to Second Appeal No.424 of 2015, amendment forthwith, re-verification dispensed with; fresh notice to Respondent No.1C returnable on 4th August 2025 with private service and affidavit of service; Appellants permitted to take out appropriate application in view of the Bailiff's report; the substantial question of law remains open for final disposal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned First Appellate Court has passed the order rejecting the delay condonation application without consideration of the detailed explanation given in Civil Misc. Application No.196 of 2014? +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Intervenor (Applicant in IA/1689/2024) is directed to be added as Respondent No.2 to the Second Appeal; amendment to be carried out forthwith; re-verification dispensed with; Mr. P. B. Gujar waives service on behalf of the added Respondent No.2.

Key takeaways

Fresh notice to be issued to Respondent No.1C, returnable on 4th August 2025; in addition to the Court notice, the Appellants to serve Respondent No.1C by private service and file affidavit of service before the returnable date (Hamdast permitted); Appellants permitted to take out appropriate application in view of the Bailiff's report.¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.), 14 July 2025 — Second Appeal No.424 of 2015 with Interim Application No.1689 of 2024. Ganesh Sarjerao Argade, claiming to have purchased Gut No.86 (admeasuring 63R including Potkharaba 0.03) of the suit property by registered Sale Deed dated 18th February 2014 (registered 21st February 2014, the same day the first appeal was filed), sought to be added as Respondent to the Second Appeal. The impugned Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court is dated 18th February 2008 in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2005; the appeal before the learned District Judge, Pune with delay condonation application was filed on 21st February 2014. Appellants' counsel, on instructions, consented to the impleadment; the Court directed that the Intervenor be added as Respondent No.2, amendment forthwith, re-verification dispensed with, and Mr. Gujar waived service. The Second Appeal stood admitted by order dated 7th June 2023 on the substantial question of law: whether the First Appellate Court rejected the delay condonation application without consideration of the detailed explanation given in Civil Misc. Application No.196 of 2014. Respondents 1A and 1B were served; notice to Respondent No.1C returned unserved ('not found on given address'). Fresh notice ordered, returnable 4th August 2025, with private service, affidavit of service, and liberty to take out an appropriate application in view of the Bailiff's report. The substantial question of law remains open for final disposal.

27-SA-424-2015+.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.424 OF 2015

Pandit Narayan Sukre & Ors. …Appellants Versus Krushnabai Parbhu Argade since deceased through legal heirs 1A. Anjanabai Narayan Khaire & Ors. …Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1689 OF 2024

IN

SECOND APPEAL NO.424 OF 2015

Ganesh Sarjerao Argade …Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: Pandit Narayan Sukre & Ors. …Appellants

Versus Krushnabai Parbhu Argade since deceased through legal heirs 1A. Anjanabai Narayan Khaire & Ors. …Respondents

Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, for the Appellants. Mr. P. B. Gujar, for the Applicant in IA/1689/2024.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 14^th JULY 2025

P. C.:

Heard Mr. Gujar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

Page 1

Sonali

27-SA-424-2015+.DOC

It is the submission of Mr. Gujar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant has purchased one of the suit property bearing Gut No.86, admeasuring 63R including Potkharaba of 0.03 by registered Sale Deed dated 18^th February 2014. He therefore, states that he be added as party Respondent to the Second Appeal.

Perusal of the record shows that the impugned Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court is dated 18^th February 2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2005. The Appeal before the learned District Judge, Pune along with delay condonation application has been filed on 21^st February 2014. The said Sale Deed in favour of the Applicant/Intervenor is also registered on 21^st February 2014.

In view of above factual position, Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on instructions, states that the Intervenor can be added as party Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Intervenor is directed to be added as Respondent No.2. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

Page 2

Sonali

27-SA-424-2015+.DOC

Mr. Gujar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the added Respondent No.2.

This Court by order dated 7^th June 2023 has admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned First Appellate Court has passed the order rejecting the delay condonation application without consideration of the detailed explanation given in Civil Misc. Application No.196 of 2014?”

By said order notice was issued to the Respondents for final disposal, as narrow controversy is involved in this Second Appeal.

The office note shows that the Respondent No.1A and 1B are served. However, notice to the Respondent No.1C has returned back with remark “not found on given address”.

Accordingly, Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel seeks time to take appropriate steps.

Apart from that, issue fresh notice to the Respondent No.1C, returnable on 4^th August 2025 .

Page 3

Sonali

27-SA-424-2015+.DOC

In addition to the Court notice, the Appellants to serve the Respondent No.1C by private service and file affidavit of service before the returnable date. Hamdast permitted.

The Appellants are permitted to take out appropriate application in view of above referred Bailiff’s report.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.07.14 18:24:25 +0530

Page 4

Sonali