The tribunal allowed an application to condone a four-day delay in filing a Special Appeal. It relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the duty to ascertain bona fides before addressing merits.
Condonation of delay of four days in filing Special Appeal (D) No.378 of 2025 allowed with costs of Rs. 2500/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| 19.05.2025 | Exh | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.37 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr Imran Mubarak Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Nikhil Rajani and Ms Shobha Chavan i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocates for Respondent. The Applicants has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the Application under Section 17 being S.A. (D) No.378 of 2025. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that when the Applicant received notice for possession on 10.01.2025 from the Advocate Court Commissioner and then the Advocate for the Applicant drafted an S.A. and kept it ready for filing. However, due to some difficulties the Applicants could not have time to visit their Advocate’s office for affirmation and therefore, there was four days delay in filing of the S.A. The S.A. was supposed to the filed on or before 24.02.2025, however, due to the unavoidable circumstances and illness of the Applicants, could not file S.A. in time and hence, prays that the delay may be condoned. The fact of illness of the Applicants is not opposed by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent. |
Page 1 of 2
Heard both sides. Perused the Record.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024 observed that while considering an application to condone delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Hence, this Tribunal will not decide on the merits of the matter but will rather consider the bonafide shown in the explanation.
In the above facts and circumstances, M.A. No.37 of 2025 is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.2500/- payable to DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals.
S.A. (D) No.378 of 2025 be registered after due compliance.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
rst - 04
Sd/P.O. DRT-II
Closed
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the explanation offered by the applicant for condoning a four-day delay in filing Special Appeal be accepted as bona fide.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRsExplained¶4
H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Roznama-MDRT-II Applicants
Respondent
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
