Shantabai Wd/O Namdeo Hatwar and Others vs Jairam S/O Maruti Patle and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shantabai Wd/O Namdeo Hatwar and Others vs Jairam S/O Maruti Patle and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay condoned and abatement set aside; legal representatives of deceased appellant/applicant No.1 permitted to be brought on record with amendment by 13.02.2026; Civil Application (CAO) No.1136 of 2025 and Misc. Civil Application St. Nos.21311 of 2025 and 6224 of 2023 allowed; Office directed to register Second Appeal St. No.1475 of 2022 subject to removal of all office objections on or before 13.02.2026, failing which the appeal to stand dismissed without reference to the Court; costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent payable on or before 13.02.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant/applicant No.1 on record ought to be condoned and the abatement set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

Civil Application (CAO) No.1136 of 2025 and Misc. Civil Application St. Nos.21311 of 2025 and 6224 of 2023 are allowed; the Office is directed to register the Second Appeal subject to all office objections being removed positively on or before 13.02.2026, failing which the Second Appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

Ratio / Principle

Delay in bringing the legal representatives of deceased appellant/applicant No.1 on record is condoned and the abatement is set aside, since the appellants have been prosecuting the proceedings since 1982, although the delay was not properly explained.

Key takeaways

Necessary amendment to effect substitution of the legal representatives is to be carried out on or before 13.02.2026.ratio¶19
An appellant cannot be personally held responsible for non-removal of office objections where the mistake is that of the advocate and the advocate's clerk; the litigant should not be penalised for such lapses.ratio¶25
Having regard to the delay occasioned, costs of Rs. 10,000/- are imposed, payable to the respondent by transmission to his account on or before 13.02.2026.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Application (CAO) Nos.1136, 1137 and 1138 of 2025 and Misc. Civil Application St. Nos.21311 of 2025 and 6224 of 2023 in Second Appeal St. No.1475 of 2022 — Shantabai Namdeo Hatwar (died) thru. Usha and ors. v. Jairam S/o Maruti Patle and ors. — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Rohit W. Joshi, J.), 29.01.2026 — Condonation of delay — Abatement — Legal representatives — Registration of Second Appeal had been refused for non-removal of office objections (Registrar (Judicial) order dated 21.04.2022), and the Misc. Civil Application challenging that order was itself unregistered (order dated 22.06.2023). Held: (i) applicant no.9 having expired, delay in substituting his legal representatives condoned and abatement set aside, the appellants prosecuting the matter since 1982 although the delay was not properly explained; amendment by 13.02.2026; (ii) an appellant cannot be personally held responsible for non-removal of office objections, the mistake being of the advocate and advocate's clerk; (iii) CAO 1136/2025 and the Misc. Civil Applications allowed; Second Appeal to be registered subject to removal of all office objections by 13.02.2026, failing which it shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court; costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent by 13.02.2026.

1

CAO 1136.25 - Copy.odt

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

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.1138 OF 2025 AND 1137 OF 2025

IN

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.21311 OF 2025 IN

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.6224 OF 2023 (REJ) IN

SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.1475 OF 2022 (REJ.)

Shantabai Namdeo Hatwar (died) thru. Usha and ors. Vs.

Jairam S/o Maruti Patle and ors.

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

Court's or Judge's Order

Mr. N. R. Raut, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. A. M. Quazi, Advocate for non-applicants

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29.01.2026.

. The applicant no.9 has expired. This is an application for bringing his legal representatives on record. Registration of Second Appeal is already refused on account of failure on the part of the appellants to remove office objections as directed by the learned Registrar (Judicial). Although delay is not properly explained, having regard to the fact that the appellants are prosecuting the present proceeding since the year 1982 i.e. when the civil suit was initially filed, this Court deems it fit to condone the delay caused to set aside the abatement and to permit the legal representatives of

2 12. CAO 1136.25 - Copy.odt

deceased appellant/applicant No.1 to be brought on record.

Necessary amendment be carried out on or before 13.02.2026.

Civil Applications are allowed and disposed of.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.1136 OF 2025 AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.21311 OF 2025 AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.6224 OF 2023 (REJ) IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.1475 OF 2022 (REJ.) .

Registration of Second Appeal Stamp No.1475 of 2022 was refused on account of failure on the part of the appellants to remove office objections in compliance of order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial). The said order is subjected to challenge in Misc. Civil Application St. No.6224 of 2023 registration of which came to be refused on account of failure on the part of the appellants to remove office objection in the said Misc. Civil Application as directed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) vide order dated 22.06.2023. The said office objection pertains to filing of an application for condonation of delay in Misc. Civil Application St. No.6224 of 2023. The appellants have filed Civil Application (CAO) No.1136 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application St. No.6224 of 2023.

The appellant is contesting the litigation since the year 1982. He has engaged advocate for prosecuting the

3 12. CAO 1136.25 - Copy.odt

appeal. It is obvious that the appellant cannot be personally held responsible for non-removal of office objections. The mistake is on the part of the advocate and advocate's clerk. The appellant should not be penalized for the lapses on the part of his advocate and his clerk.

In view of the above, Civil Application (CAO) No.1136 of 2025 and Misc. Civil Application St. Nos.21311 of 2025 and 6224 of 2023 are allowed.

Office is directed to register the Second Appeal subject to condition that all office objections shall be removed positively on or before 13.02.2026. In the event all office objections are not removed before the said date, Second Appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

Having regard to the delay that is occasioned, cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Amount be transmitted in the account of the respondent, details whereof shall be provided by the learned advocate for the respondent to the learned Advocate for the appellant. Cost be paid on or before 13.02.2026.

Civil Application as well as Misc. Civil Applications are disposed of.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Tanmay...