Balwant Khandu Kokate vs Ashok Bansi Jadhav and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Balwant Khandu Kokate vs Ashok Bansi Jadhav and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil revision application rejected; no interference with the impugned condonation order save enhancement of cost from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, which Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay (or pay the balance cost) within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Appellate Court condoning a delay of 130 days by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (original defendant Nos.4 and 5) in preferring appeal under Section 96 CPC ought to be interfered with, given the alleged lapses of the respondents and the uncorroborated medical ground put forth for the delay.

Ratio / Principle

On the cross-examination adverted to by learned counsel for the applicant, the parties were at loggerheads and the reasons stated in the condonation application — that at the instance of the plaintiff the defendant did not report — cannot be countenanced; the medical ground is likewise shown to be uncorroborated.

Key takeaways

Right of appeal under Section 96 is a substantive statutory right, and the delay in preferring the appeal cannot be said to be inordinate.ratio¶¶23
The view taken by the Appellate Court in condoning the delay cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal, and therefore no interference is called for.ratio¶¶23
The cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed alongwith the condonation of delay is found inadequate under the given circumstances and is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-; save and except the cost, no interference is called for.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Application (101 CRA No.254 of 2025) by Balwant Khandu Kokate, the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2021 (decreed by the Trial Court on 16.09.2023), challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 of the Appellate Court condoning a delay of 130 days by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (original defendant Nos.4 and 5, alleged to have encroached upon 14 R. of Gut No.45) in preferring an appeal under Section 96 CPC via Civil Misc. Application No.55 of 2024. Although the cross-examination showed the pleaded medical ground uncorroborated and the parties at loggerheads — the application's plea that the defendant did not report at the plaintiff's instance being unsustainable — the Court held the delay not inordinate and the Appellate Court's view neither perverse nor patently illegal, the right of appeal under Section 96 being a substantive statutory right. The revision application was accordingly rejected (decision date 10.03.2026); the imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- was found inadequate and enhanced to Rs.5,000/-, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (or the balance thereof) within two weeks. Coram: Shailesh P. Brahme, J. (single judge). Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:10509.

101-CRA.254-25.odt

1

2026:BHC-AUG:10509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

101 CRA NO. 254 OF 2025

BALWANT KHANDU KOKATE VERSUS

ASHOK BANSI JADHAV AND OTHERS

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Dattatraya Rambhau Markad. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Bedre Vinayak S.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 10.03.2026

PER COURT :-

Heard both sides.

Civil revision application is directed against order dated 30.10.2025 thereby condoning delay of 130 days in preferring appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

Applicant is the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2021 for declaration and removal of encroachment. Contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 are original defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are alleged to have encroached upon 14 R. of land of Gut No.45. In pursuance of the summons, they appeared in the suit through lawyer but they did not file written statement. The matter proceeded further. Trial Court decreed the suit on 16.09.2023. Respondent Nos.1

101-CRA.254-25.odt

2

and 2 approached the Appellate Court by filing Civil Misc. Application No.55 of 2024 for condonation of delay in preferring appeal. The delay was condoned by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the applicant has adverted my attention to the cross-examination to show that the reasons given for condonation of delay are totally inconsistent and misconceived. It is submitted that there are lapses on the part of the respondents and the delay was intentional. It is submitted that no medical papers are placed on record and ground of ailment is after thought. It is further submitted that the parties are at the loggerheads and it is difficult to conceive that at the instance of the applicant, the respondents did not report the lawyer or other Court.

Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Bedre appearing for the respondents submits that the Court has taken reasonable and plausible view. It is submitted that impugned order is in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The cross-examination which is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant shows that the medical ground put forth is not

101-CRA.254-25.odt

3

corroborated. It further reveals that the parties were at the loggerhead and the reasons stated in the application that at the instance of plaintiff, the defendant did not report cannot be countenanced.

Right of appeal under Section 96 is substantive statutory right. The delay cannot be said to be inordinate. The view taken by the Appellate Court in condoning the delay cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal and cost of Rs.2,000/has also been imposed. Under given circumstances, I find that cost is inadequate and it is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Save and except the cost. No interference is called for.

Civil revision application is rejected.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- or the balance cost within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

vmk/-