Dismissed¶18

Kamal Arjun Karanjule and Another v. Nana Shriram Diwate and Others

Condonation of delay – Writ petition against District Judge

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/13009/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; sufficient cause; 271 days' delay; appeal against order below Exhibit 5; Regular Civil Suit No. 421/2022; Civil Misc. Application No. 3/2024; District Judge – 1, Shrigonda; finding of fact; perversity; writ jurisdiction; no interference; Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad; Writ Petition No. 13009 of 2024; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 29 April 2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This was not a case wherein absolutely no reason was given by the contesting Respondent for condonation of delay. ¶17

Kamal Arjun Karanjule and Another vs Nana Shriram Diwate and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

wp13009.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

940 WRIT PETITION NO. 13009 OF 2024

¶5

Kamal Arjun Karanjule & another ….Petitioners VERSUS Nana Shriram Diwate & others …..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Swapnil Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. D. B. Rode, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. P. K. Palve, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. Mr. V. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29^th APRIL, 2025.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

This petition takes exception to the order dated

¶11

18.09.2024 passed by District Judge – 1, Shrigonda in Civil Misc. Application No. 3/2024 filed by Respondent by condonation of delay of 271 days in filing appeal against the Trial Court allowing Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 421/2022.

¶12

Learned counsel for Petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the application filed before the District Court for

¶13

¶14

wp13009.24.odt

¶15

condonation of delay. According to him, there is no specific reason/justification given for condonation of delay. It is his further submission that no particulars are given as to when audit has been conducted which, according to the contesting Respondent, is the reason for not filing appeal within limitation. He further drew attention of the Court to the reply filed by Petitioner before the Appellate Court indicating that the contesting Respondent has failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

¶16

Learned counsel for contesting Respondent supports the impugned order.

¶17

This is not a case wherein there is absolutely no reason given by the contesting Respondent for condonation of delay. Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact indicating that delay has been sufficiently explained. In absence of any perversity in the said finding, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, no interference is required to be caused in the impugned order. Apart from this, no prejudice will be caused to the Petitioners if Misc. Civil Appeal against order passed below Exhibit 5 is entertained. It is always open for the Petitioners to defend order passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 5.

¶18

3 - wp13009.24.odt 5. In view of the above discussion, petition stands dismissed.

¶19

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb

Kamal Arjun Karanjule and Another v. Nana Shriram Diwate and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Arjun Karanjule and Another v. Nana Shriram Diwate and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mohd Nafish Mohd Ali Khan (Deceased) and Ors.

Ali Raza Abdul Karim Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Mansuri @ Mohd. Farukh Yasin Mansur @ Mohammad Farooq Yasin vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Maruti More vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Pune vs Shamla @ Shyamala Ashok Naidu and Ors.

Mr. Arif Akbar Pathan and Anr. vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai