Mr.Mahesh R. Sharma vs Terrance Joseph Gudinho And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4065 Bom

                                                    30-cas-260-19 in sast-36255-18


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2019
                                     IN
                   SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 36255 OF 2018

 Mahesh R. Sharma                                     ..Applicant
      Vs.
 Terrance Joseph Gudinho and Ors.                     ..Respondents

                                    ----

 Mr. R. D. Soni @ Ms. Uma Sharma i/b. Dharam & Co., for the
 Applicant.
 Mr. A. J. Almeida, for the Respondents.

                                    ----

                                  CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

DATE : 04th MARCH 2021

P.C.

. This is an application for condonation of delay of 93 days in

filing the second appeal. The applicant is an Obstructionist. The

application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC filed by the respondents

decree holder was dismissed by the Executing Court on 1/8/2012

which was challenged by the decree holders in an appeal, which

came to be allowed on 15/6/2018 which judgment and decree is

sought to be challenged in this second appeal.

Mamta Kale page 1 of 3

30-cas-260-19 in sast-36255-18

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the record, it appears that the applicant initially challenged the

judgment and decree dated 15/6/2018 in Civil Revision Application

(ST) No.2347/2018 which was allowed to be withdrawn on

22/10/2018 with liberty to file second appeal.

3. Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

under a misconception the applicant again applied for certified

copies to file the second appeal resulting into the delay. The present

application came to be filed on 27/8/2019. It is pointed out that the

office has shown the delay of 93 days.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents / decree holders has

opposed the application. However, it is alternatively submitted that

if this Court is inclined to condone the delay, it may be subject to

appropriate costs.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having

regard to the circumstances, the delay is condoned subject to

applicant paying costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondents /

decree holders within two weeks from today.

Mamta Kale page 2 of 3

30-cas-260-19 in sast-36255-18

6. The payment / deposit of costs shall be condition precedent to

condonation of delay. On payment / deposit of the costs, the office

to register the second appeal subject to removal of office objections,

if any. In the event, the second appeal is registered, the same to

stand over for admission on 6/4/2021.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

      Mamta Kale                                                    page 3 of 3