Anand Namdeo Gavli vs Balasaheb Babu Pakhale
2021 Latest Caselaw 10510 Bom

                                          (1)

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7537 OF 2017
                                  IN
                  SECOND APPEAL ST.NO.11424 OF 2016

 Anand Namdeo Gavli                                             =     APPLICANT

          VERSUS

 Balasaheb Babu Pakhale                                         = RESPONDENT
                                         -----
 Mr. RP Adgaonkar                  &     Mr.FK    Patel,          Advocates           for
 Applicant;

 Mr.KR Doke & Mr.SK Doke, Advocates for Respondent.
                        -----

                                  CORAM :        SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.

                                  DATE :         6th August , 2021.

 PER COURT :-

 1.               Present        application       has        been        filed        for

getting the delay of 1018 days condoned in filing the

Second Appeal.

2. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the

respective parties. In order to cut short, it can be

stated that both of them have made submissions in

support of their respective contentions.

3. Present Respondent is original plaintiff, who

had filed a suit bearing RCS No.42/2009 for perpetual

injunction before Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Washi, district Osmanabad. The suit was decreed.

However, it appears that even the present appellant has

filed RCA No.183/2012 and the present Respondent-

defendant has filed RCA No.80/2009 before the learned

Principal District Judge, Osmanabad. Both the appeals

were dismissed by common judgment on 6.3.2013. The

plaintiff intends to file the Second Appeal,

challenging the dismissal of his appeal. However, as

aforesaid, there is delay of 1018 days.

4. The applicant has contended that due to his

illiteracy and ignorance about the legal procedure, he

could not approach this Court within limitation.

According to him, he had approached the Advocate at

Aurangabad with certified copies, however, the Advocate

asked him certain documents and on providing those

documents, the advocate advised him to prefer an

appeal. However, some time was spent by him in

collecting the amount that is required to prefer the

appeal.

5. Important point to be noted is that, a very

vague reason is tried to be given. There are

absolutely no particulars as to when the applicant came

to know about the decision in the appeal; when he has

obtained the certified copies etc. If we peruse the

certified copies, those are on record, then it would

show that after the judgment was pronounced by the

first Appellate Court on 6.3.2013, an application for

certified copy was given within two days, i.e. on

8.3.2013 and the copies were received on 25.3.2013 in

respect of the judgment of the first Appellate Court is

concerned. Thereafter, it appears that subsequently,

he collected the certified copies of the appeal memo;

subsequent thereto, the decree passed by the first

Appellate Court etc. That means, at one stroke, he has

not approached the concerned Courts to obtain the

certified copies of the relevant. There is no reason

mentioned as to why he could not have obtained those

copies once for all.

6. Another point to be noted is that the present

appeal requires only Rs.200/- as court fees. Therefore

it is hard to believe the contention of the applicant

that he spent much time in collecting the amount

required to preferred the appeal. The reasons have

been tried to be given only in eight lines and it

cannot be seen that those reasons are sufficient and

justifiable, much less reasonable, to condone the

delay.

7. In view of the above, the application

deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is

rejected. Pending Civil Application, if any, stands

disposed of.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE BDV