Sandhya Jagdish Pujari vs Mohammed Jahir Shaikh Since Decd Thr His Legal Heirs and Ors.

the Constitution of India is challenging legality and validity of the order dated 04^th February 2026 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Nashik below Exhibit-1 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.143 of 2019. The said Application is filed for delay condonation in preferring restoration application against dismissal of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.275 of 2001 which was dismissed in default on 12^th November 2007.

¶13

Perusal of the record shows that predecessor of Respondent

¶14

Page 1

¶15

914-CIVIL WP-2266-2026 .DOC

¶16

Akash Tayde

¶17

Nos.1 to 12 instituted a Civil Suit for eviction being Regular Civil Suit No.532 of 1998 against one Govind Sahadu Pujari. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 15^th March 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division-11, Nashik. The said judgment decree dated 15^th March 2001 was challenged by said Govind Sahadu Pujari by filing Civil Appeal No.275 of 2001. The said Civil Appeal which has been filed in the year 2001 came to be dismissed for non prosecution by order dated 12^th November

¶18

The said order dated 12^th November 2007, reads as under :

¶19

“visyaV gk pkSd’khps dkeh xSjgtj jgkr vlY;kus R;kps ofdykauh uksVhl ikBowu fuo`Rr >kY;kph iwjfll fnyh- R;kuarjgh vkrki;Zar visyaV visyaV U;k;ke/;s xSjgtj jkghY;kus lnjps vfiy [kpkZlg dk<wu Vkdk.ksr ;sr vkgs”.

¶20

Thereafter, the said Govind Sahadu Pujari passed away on 07^th August 2011. The Petitioner is the daughter-in-law of said deceased Govind Sahadu Pujari. The Application has been filed for delay condonation of about 12 years.

¶21

Perusal of the record shows that one Ghanshyam Jagdish Pujari i.e. son of the present Applicant was impleaded as party Respondent No.14 to the Execution proceedings as he was found to be occupying the suit premises. Thus, the son of the present

¶22

Page 2

¶23

914-CIVIL WP-2266-2026 .DOC

¶24

Akash Tayde

¶25

Petitioner is aware of the execution proceedings. Belatedly after about 12 years the Petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.43 of 2019 seeking delay condonation.

¶26

The learned Appellate Court has rejected the said Application as there is huge delay of 12 years.

¶27

Perusal of the record shows that the Petitioner’s son is already party to the execution proceedings. Thus, the Petitioner is aware about the dismissal of the Appeal.

¶28

Although, it is the contention of the Ms. Khairnar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is conducting the shop in the suit premises, however, perusal of the record shows that her son was occupying the suit property and therefore, he has been impleaded as party in the execution proceedings.

¶29

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no interference in the impugned order dated 04^th February 2026 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Nashik in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.143 of 2019 is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the Application seeking restoration of the Appeal has been filed after huge delay of 12 years.

¶30

Page 3

¶31

914-CIVIL WP-2266-2026 .DOC

¶32

Akash Tayde

¶33