Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Damodar S/O Balkisan Dhoot vs Bahadursing S/O Ramsing Rajput ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4061 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4061 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Bombay High Court
Damodar S/O Balkisan Dhoot vs Bahadursing S/O Ramsing Rajput ... on 4 March, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
                                        1                                  040321wp3239.19.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2019
                           DAMODAR S/o BALKISAN DHOOT
                                      VERSUS
                    BAHADURSING S/o RAMSING RAJPUT AND OTHERS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                           Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Mr. A. J. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
                        Mr. V. M.Gadkari, Advocate for respondent no.4

                                 CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : MARCH 04, 2021.

1. Heard Mr. A. J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. M. Gadkari, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Though, the other respondents are served, nobody is appearing for them.

2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit for declaration and restoration of the possession. It was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 03 of 2013 on the file of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malkapur. The learned Judge passed order dated 20.06.2017 below Exh.1 and in view of the order passed below Exh.64, the plaint was returned to the petitioner/plaintiff to file it before the proper forum. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before in the Court of learned District Judge, Buldhana link Court at Malkapur. The said appeal was barred by limitation. Therefore, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said was registered as Misc. Judicial Case No. 15 of 2017. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Malkapur vide order dated 10.12.2018 was pleased to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Against the said order, present 2 040321wp3239.19.odt

writ petition is filed.

3. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old aged person and therefore, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay.

4. Though, the powers are given under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Court to condone the delay, however for exercising the said power, the applicant who wish that the Court should exercise the said power, is required to establish the case so that the Court can exercise the discretion and power.

5. According to the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner had applied for certified copy on 21.6.2017 and it was obtained by him on 06.7.2017. The application for obtaining remaining certified copies was filed on 21.7.2017 and those were obtained on 29.7.2017 . It is also stated in the application that the last date for limitation to file the appeal was 20.07.2017, however since the petitioner was suffering from heart disease and backbone problem, from 01.8.2017, he was under treatment of Dr. Dipak Laddhad of Buldhana as an indoor patient and he was discharged on 22.8.2017. In this background, he submitted before the Court below that the delay be condoned.

6. Even as per the petitioner, he was an indoor patient from 01.8.2017 till 22.8.2017. In that view, the learned Judge of the Appellate Court was right in observing that the petitioner has failed to prove this 3 040321wp3239.19.odt

particular fact because of non-production of any document from Dr. Laddhad's hospital about the treatment inasmuch as the discharge certificate was not filed showing that he was admitted as an indoor patient on 01.8.2017 and was discharged on 22.8.2017. Further, even according to the application, the last date for filing the appeal was 20.07.2017 and the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 01.8.2017. There is no explanation whatsoever in nature for the period from 20.7.2017 to 01.8.2017. In my view, there is no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Malkapur in not exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

7. No case is made out. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.



                                             JUDGE
Diwale


                                                             Digitally
                                                             signed by
                                            Parag            Parag Diwale
                                                             Date:
                                            Diwale           2021.03.05
                                                             17:56:03
                                                             +0530
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter