Sanjay Babasaheb Pawar vs Uttam Narayan Pimpale Died Lrs. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3674 Bom

                                                                   941-CA-12313-2019.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12313 OF 2019
                               IN SAST/28458/2019

                    SANJAY BABASAHEB PAWAR
                              VERSUS
UTTAM NARAYAN PIMPALE DIED LRS. KALABAI UTTAM PIMPALE AND
                              OTHERS
                                 ...
            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kotkar Sachin S.
 Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. M. N. Shaikh h/f Mr. Pathan
                              Zafar M
                                 ...

                                     CORAM        : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

                                     DATE         : 26th February, 2021

ORDER :-


.         Present application has been filed for getting 13 days delay

condoned in filing Second Appeal.


2.        Present applicant is the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular

Civil Suit No.8 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Newasa for specific performance of the contract. It came to be decreed

on 14.12.2015.             It appears that the legal representatives of original

defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.69 of 2015 before the learned

District Judge-1, Newasa and the said appeal came to be partly allowed.

The suit to the extent of specific performance of contract was dismissed

and the order for refund of earnest amount together with interest was


                                            (1)

     ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 03:53:30 :::
                                                                941-CA-12313-2019.odt


passed. Now, the plaintiff intends to challenge the said judgment and

decree passed by the first Appellate Court, however, there is delay of 13

days.


3.        Though learned Advocate Mr. M. N. Shaikh holding for learned

Advocate Mr. Pathan strongly opposes the application on the ground that

the reasons mentioned in the application cannot be said to be

reasonable and sufficient to condone the delay, yet, taking into

consideration the duration of the delay and by taking liberal approach,

the application stands allowed.           The inconvenience that would be

caused to the respondents can be compensated in terms of money.

Hence, the following order :-

                                      ORDER

I) Application stands allowed.

II) Delay caused in filing Second Appeal stands condoned subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/- in this Court within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.

III) After the cost amount is deposited, registry to verify and register the Second Appeal.

IV) The cost amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondents equally.

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] scm