Bombay High Court
Subhash Tukaram Thakre vs Sunita Subhash Thakre on 26 August, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4862 of 2020
in
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.37025 OF 2018
Subhash s/o Tukaram Thakre (Bhill) = APPLICANT
(Orig.Defendant)
VERSUS
Smt.Sunita w/o Subhash Thakare = RESPONDENT
(orig.Plaintiff)
-----
Mr.HV Tungar,Advocate for Applicant;
Mr.AJ Patil,Advocate for Respondent
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 26th August, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Present application has been filed for
getting delay of 583 days condoned in filing Second
Appeal.
2. Heard learned Advocates 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. The applicant and respondent are husband
and wife. The applicant is original defendant in
HMP No.334/2009 filed before Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalgaon for restitution of conjugal
rights. The applicant had resisted the said
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 09:42:10 :::
(2)
proceeding by filing written statement. He had
filed HMP No.364/2009 before the same Court for
dissolution of marriage. The petition for
restitution of conjugal rights came to be decreed;
whereas the petition for dissolution of marriage,
came to be dismissed on 23.6.2011. The applicant
had filed RCA No.128/2011 and 129/2011 to challenge
the respective decrees. Both the appeals were
dismissed by common judgment by learned District
Judge-4, Jalgaon on 30.1.2017. The applicant says
that he has already filed Second Appeal,
challenging the judgment and decree in respect of
dismissal of his petition for divorce. However, as
regards the other proceeding is concerned, there
was typographical mistake with the judgment of the
first Appellate Court. He was then required to
file Day Application No.1/2017 to get said error
corrected and after it was got corrected, he is
approaching this Court. However, there is delay of
583 days. He says that the said delay was beyond
his control.
4. Correction in the typographical mistake
occurred in the judgment can be seen and,
therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve that
part. However, when common judgment is given and
he has already filed the Second Appeal, challenging
the common decree, he ought not to have made the
application for correction after a long time and,
therefore, definitely inconvenience that would have
caused to the respondent deserves to be
compensated. Hence, following order, -
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 09:42:10 :::
(3)
ORDER
i. The application stands allowed
and disposed of.
ii. The delay caused in filing the
Second Appeal stands condoned, subject to
deposit of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand) within a period of one
month from today in this Court.
iii. After the amount is deposited,
Registry to verify and register the
Second Appeal.
iv. The amount of costs be given to
the respondent.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
