Sau. Pushpa W/O Bhalchandra ... vs Satyawan S/O Ramaji Ganvir And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15002 Bom

12.cas.701.19                                                                                                   1/2


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                              Civil Application [CAS] No.701 of 2019
                                                 in
                               Second Appeal St. No.15102 of 2019

                               Sau. Pushpa w/o Bhalchandra Pardhi
                                               vs.
                                Satyawan Ramaji Ganvir & others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
                Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
                Shri V.D. Muley, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

                               CORAM           : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2021.

Heard the learned Advocate for both the sides.

The present applicant is defendant No.2. He is one of the purchaser from the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the authority of the father to sell the properties to defendant Nos.2 to

5. Defendant No.1 is a father, who expired during pendency of the suit.

The trial Court has only declared the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 as not binding on the plaintiff. There were two appeals filed before the first appellate Court. One is by the plaintiff for dismissing the suit in respect of other sale-deeds, whereas, other one is filed by defendant No.3. Both the appeals were disposed of by common judgment and the suit was decreed in toto.

Defendant No.3 has filed two second appeals bearing Nos.242 & 783 of 2017. Learned Advocate Shri Muley is representing

12.cas.701.19 2/2

the appellants in those two appeals. The present application is for condonation of delay caused in filing of second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court. The delay is of 871 days. It is strongly opposed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The appellant contends that in those two appeals, the present appellant was respondent No.3 and he filed an application for staying the execution of the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Ultimately, that was disposed of. His contention is that, as advised by his learned Advocate, he has taken steps, that is one of the reasons for delay condonation. It is necessary to go through the proceedings of Second Appeal Nos.242 & 783 of 2017.

Hence, tag those two appeals to the present appeal for the purpose of perusal of the record.

The matter be kept in the week starting from 22 nd of November, 2021.

JUDGE *sandesh