Dismissed¶31

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe v. Maruti Ranu Londhe

Bombay HC4 Feb 2026IA/10957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 288-day delay; second appeal; substantial question of law; liberal approach; District Court order; partition and separate possession decree (01-01-2013); suit filed 17-05-2006; ex parte defendants; service of summons; burden on purchasers; Gauri Godse J; Bombay High Court; interim application infructuous; no statute sections and no precedent cases cited in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Except for grounds on the merits of the suit for partition and separate possession, no satisfactory explanation for condonation of the 288-day delay is pleaded by the appellants. ¶26

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe vs Maruti Ranu Londhe — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal raises a substantial question of law — viz. that the first appellate court, being the last fact-finding court, should have adopted a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the decree of partition and separate possession — so as to require interference with the impugned order.

¶19

Court's answer

Except for grounds on the merits of the suit for partition and separate possession, no satisfactory explanation for condonation of the 288-day delay is pleaded by the appellants.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The grounds raised in the application and in the second appeal on the merits of the suit cannot be considered sufficient and justifiable grounds to condone the delay; there is no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of the facts by the first appellate court.

¶30

Key takeaways

The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — Gauri Godse, J. — Second Appeal No. 490 of 2025 (with Interim Application No. 10957 of 2025) — dismissed. Original defendants nos. 1 and 2 appealed against the District Court's rejection of their application to condone a 288-day delay in filing the first appeal from a trial-court decree of 1 January 2013 granting the plaintiff respondents a 1/3rd share in a partition suit filed on 17 May 2006. The appellants, though served and having appeared below, filed no pleadings and made no attempt to set aside the ex parte order. The Judge found the condonation application bereft of satisfactory explanation — resting only on merits-based grounds and an unsupported shifting of burden onto third-party purchasers, with no affidavit or supporting evidence — and saw no illegality or perversity in the first appellate court's refusal to condone. Holding that no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed and the interim application disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

34-sa-490-2025-ia-10957-2025.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2025

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10957 OF 2025

¶7

Smt. Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe and … Appellants/Applicants Anr vs. Maruti Ranu Londhe … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Drupad Patil a/w. Ms. Srushti S. Chalke for the Appellants. Ms. Meghana Gowalani a/w. Mr. Anand Salgankar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2026.06.16 16:32:24 +0530

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 10^th JUNE 2026

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This second appeal is filed by the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 to challenge the order passed by the District Court rejecting their application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. The appellants were aggrieved by the trial court’s decree for partition and separate possession, and they preferred the first appeal before the District Court, along with an application for condonation of a 288-day delay in filing the appeal.

¶13

Page no. 1 of 5

¶14

34-sa-490-2025-ia-10957-2025.doc

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants claimed to be the owners through Kondiba, and, according to the appellants, the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the suit property. He submits that the earlier partition suit was dismissed as against the present plaintiffs. He submits that, in view of the sale deeds executed by the appellants in respect of the 2/3^rd share and the arrangement in respect of the remaining 1/3^rd share, they remained absent from the suit, though served with the summons. In the last week of July 2013, when they inquired with the purchaser about the suit, they found it had been decreed. The appellants applied for certified copies and took steps to file the first appeal. He further submits that the first appellate court, being the last fact-finding court, ought to have considered the reasons for condonation of delay liberally and granted an opportunity to the appellants to prosecute the appeal on the merits. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the facts pleaded in the application for condonation of delay in paragraph no. 2 of the application.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that dismissal of the application for delay condonation caused serious prejudice to the appellants’ right as they are the exclusive owners of the suit property. He therefore submits that the first appellate court

¶17

Page no. 2 of 5

¶18

34-sa-490-2025-ia-10957-2025.doc

¶19

should have considered the application for condonation of delay with a liberal approach instead of adopting a hyper-technical view. He therefore submits that the second appeal would raise a substantial question of law as to whether the first appellate court, being the last fact-finding court, should have adopted a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the decree of partition and separate possession. He therefore submits that the impugned order would require interference in this second appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the appellants have raised no ground to condone the delay. Though aware of the suit and the decree passed, they have taken no steps and are now making every effort to delay the execution of the partition decree.

¶21

I have perused the papers of the second appeal. The suit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 on 17^th May 2006 was decreed on 1st January 2013. There is no dispute that these appellants were served with the suit summons, and they appeared before the trial court. Despite appearing in the trial court, they chose not to file any pleadings on the merits of the suit. There was never any attempt to set aside the ex parte order against them in the suit. The trial court

¶22

Page no. 3 of 5

¶23

34-sa-490-2025-ia-10957-2025.doc

¶24

decreed the suit on 1^st January 2013, granting a 1/3^rd share to the plaintiffs.

¶25

I have perused the application for condonation of delay. Except for the pleading on the merits of the suit for partition and separate possession, no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay is pleaded by the appellants. The reason for not proceeding in the suit is that 2/3^rd of the share was sold by them to third parties, and the remaining 1/3^rd was to be sold after correction of the revenue record. The first appellate court has therefore held that no affidavit of the third-party purchaser has been filed to support the appellants’ contentions regarding their failure to take any steps despite service of the writ of summons. The contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay are disputed by the original plaintiffs.

¶26

The first appellate court rejected the application by holding that no satisfactory reason was pleaded to condone the delay. There is no dispute that the appellants, though served with the suit summons, intentionally remained absent. Admittedly, there is no supporting evidence or any affidavit filed to support the contention raised in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, merely shifting the burden on the purchasers is not considered acceptable

¶27

Page no. 4 of 5

¶28

34-sa-490-2025-ia-10957-2025.doc

¶29

to condone the delay. The first appellate court has therefore examined the reasons in the application for condonation of delay and, for want of any satisfactory explanation, has refused to exercise the discretion to condone the delay.

¶30

I see no illegality in the reasons recorded by the first appellate court. Except for raising grounds on the merits of the suit and shifting the burden on the purchasers, the application is bereft of any explanation and/or justification for not taking any steps to file an appeal within time. The grounds raised in the application and in this second appeal on the merits of the suit cannot be considered as sufficient and justifiable grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the appreciation of the facts by the first appellate court.

¶31

The second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, the interim application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶32

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶33

Page no. 5 of 5

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe v. Maruti Ranu Londhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe v. Maruti Ranu Londhe

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

Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Badjate Stock Broking Private Limited

Manekchand Panachand Trading Investment Company Private Limited vs Badjate Stock Broking Private Limited

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited vs Asit Koticha

Raosaheb Kisan Borade (since deceased) vs the Deputy Salt Commissioner

Rajeev Girdharlal Pittie vs Ms Sky Lounge Estates Private Limited

Rajeev Girdharilal Pittie vs Sky Lounge Estates Private Limited