Bombay High Court
Shatrughna Agatrao Khandekar And ... vs Appasaheb Arjun Koli And Ors on 23 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Gadkari
Osk 12-CAS-22-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 22 OF 2021
WITH
R.C. NO. 455 OF 2016
SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 25587 OF 2015
Shatrughna Agatrao Khandekar & Ors. ... Applicants
V/s.
Appasaheb Arjun Koli & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.S.P. Rajepandhare for Applicants.
Mr.Prasad Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 23rd August 2021.
P.C. :
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 years and 8
months in preferring the present Second Appeal against the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 14th October 2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal
No. 21 of 2003, by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Solapur, thereby
dismissing the Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in R.C.S.
No.77 of 1996, by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mohol, District
Solapur.
2. Heard Mr.Rajepandhare, learned Advocate for the Applicants and
Mr.Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Perused
Osk 12-CAS-22-2021.odt
record.
3. The only contention which has been raised by the Applicants for
condonation of such an inordinate and colossal delay is that, their Advocate
did not inform them about dismissal of the said Appeal and it is only when
they received execution notice from the concerned Court, they came to know
about dismissal of the Appeal.
4. At the outset, it is to be noted here that, the litigants/clients
cannot be heard to raise a spacious plea that, there was a communication gap
between him and his Advocate. Many a times, the litigants carry wrong
impression that, once an advocate is briefed in a case, it is the duty of the
concerned Advocate to take care of the case at all stages, till the litigation
comes to an end. It is the settled position of law that, it is the equal
responsibility of the clients/litigants to follow up their own matter with their
Advocate and not to blame their Advocate for the lapses committed by the
litigants.
5. A bare perusal of the present Application for condonation of delay
of 5 years and 8 months would clearly indicate that, no satisfactory least to
say any plausible explanation for condonation of such a colossal and
inordinate delay has been offered by the Applicants. The Applicants have
taken a spacious plea of communication gap between them and their Advocate
for seeking condonation of such an inordinate delay and none else.
Osk 12-CAS-22-2021.odt
6. In view thereof, the Applicants have not offered any satisfactory
and plausible explanation for condonation of such a colossal and inordinate
delay occurred in filing the present Second Appeal.
I find no merits in the Application, Application is accordingly
dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of Application for condonation of delay in
filing the Second Appeal, Second Appeal (St.) No.25587 of 2015 does not
survive and is accordingly disposed off.
[A.S. GADKARI, J.]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
OMKAR SHIVAHAR
SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2021.08.27
10:27:46 +0530
