Bombay High Court
Digambar Sambhaji Jadhav vs Mehrunissa Begum Sk. Salim on 15 September, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4800 OF 2020
IN SAST/27651/2018
DIGAMBAR SAMBHAJI JADHAV
VERSUS
MEHRUNISSA BEGUM W/O SK. SALIM
...
Mr. V.A. Dhakne, Advocate for the applicant
Mr. S.K. Shaikh, Advocate for the sole respondent
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2021.
ORDER :
1 Present application has been filed for getting delay of 494 days
condoned in filing the Second Appeal. Present applicant is the original
plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.14/2008 for declaration of
ownership and recovery of possession. The said suit came to be dismissed by
Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded on 20.02.2012. The
appeal filed by the applicant i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No.80/2012 has been
dismissed by learned District Judge-1, Nanded on 31.01.2017. The present
applicant/appellant intends to file Second Appeal, however, there is delay, as
aforesaid of 494 days. Hence, the present application.
2 CA_4800_2020
2 The applicant is contending that he is poor and rustic labour,
who is required to work on daily wages at different places wherever the work
is available, for his livelihood, therefore, he was not able to visit his native
place for about a year. Applicant came to know about the Judgment and
order dated 21.01.2017 passed by the District Judge-1, Nanded in Regular
Civil Appeal No.80/2012 on 10.01.2018 when he visited his native place
after about one year and seen that the respondent is likely to construct RCC
house on suit land. Thereafter he applied for certified copies of Judgment
and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.80/2012 on 11.01.2018 and he
received the copies on 29.01.2018. The applicant was not aware of legal
provisions of filing Second Appeal before this Court, therefore, he
approached one Advocate at Nanded for taking legal guidance on
02.02.2018, who advised him to get certified copies of Judgment and order
dated 20.02.2012 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.14/2018 by Joint Civil
Judge Junior Division, Kinwat. Thereafter, applicant applied for those
certified copies on 09.02.2018 and he received the copies on 16.02.2018.
Thereafter, he again approached said Advocate at Nanded seeking further
guidance and assistance and said Advocate told him about the Court fees,
filing charges of Second Appeal and Advocate fees. However, due to paucity
of funds to prosecute the Second Appeal, the applicant was required to work
on daily wages for almost five months for making arrangement of funds and
3 CA_4800_2020
after earning necessary funds and collecting necessary documents, he
approached Advocate at Aurangabad and filed the Second Appeal. The delay
is unintentional and it is prayed that it be allowed.
3 Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.A. Dhakne for the applicant and
learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Shaikh for the sole respondent.
4 Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that though the
First Appellate Court had pronounced the Judgment in Regular Civil Appeal
No.80/2012 on 31.01.2017, the applicant came to know about the decision
on 10.01.2018 when he visited his native place after about one year.
Thereafter, he obtained the certified copies and approached the Advocate at
Nanded. After considering the documents tendered by the applicant, the said
Advocate at Nanded asked him to get more certified copies. Therefore,
further time has been consumed to get the certified copies as well as making
arrangement of funds for Court fees, filing charges, Advocate fees etc. The
learned Advocate submitted that applicant is poor and rustic labour. Due to
drought situation his financial position has become weak. This is also the
ground for condonation of delay as he could not raise appropriate funds.
Learned Advocate prayed that the delay be condoned.
5 Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent strongly
4 CA_4800_2020
objected the application and submitted that the delay is inordinate and it has
not been properly, much less sufficiently explained.
6 At the outset, if we consider the reasons those have been given in
paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it is to be noted that applicant came to know about
the decision of his appeal on 10.01.2018 when he had visited his native place
after a time gap of one year, but he has not stated the places where he was
working. He has merely stated that respondent is likely to construct RCC
house on suit land, but no supporting documents are annexed. Further, after
the certified copies were received on 16.02.2018 the Second Appeal has been
filed on 06.09.2018, after almost six months. Now, as regards this second
segment of the delay is concerned, the applicant has come with a case that
after the certified copies were collected the Advocate at Nanded told him
about Court fees, filing charges and Advocate fees and due to paucity of
funds the applicant was required to work on daily wages for almost six
months. The applicant has not stated the name of Advocate at Nanded to
whom he sought guidance. He has also not explained as to why he could not
get all the information at one stroke/visit. There should be no necessity to
visit Advocate again and again for such work. Therefore, taking into
consideration all these aspects, no reasonable ground, much less sufficient is
shown to condone the delay.
5 CA_4800_2020
7 Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in Kamalbai
w/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and another vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare, 2006 SCC
OnLine Bom 1126, wherein it has been observed that -
"Delay cannot be condoned only because it is unintentional.
So also, mere poverty cannot be a ground for condonation of delay.
The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from
Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach
which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5. There must be
some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of
delay condonation."
7.1 Further, reliance can be placed on the decision in Patel Motibhai
Naranbhai and another vs. Dinubhai Motibhai Patel and others, (1996) 2 SCC
585, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that -
"Court should not come to the aid of a party where there has
been unwarrantable delay in seeking the statutory remedy."
8 As no sufficient and reasonable ground for condoning delay has
been shown, application stands rejected.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J. )
agd
