Bombay High Court
Laxman S/O Gulabrof Chidam vs Rambhau S/O Gulabrao Chidam on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 936.wp.4503.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4503 OF 2022
Laxman s/o Gulabrao Chidam
Vs.
Rambhau s/o Gulabrao Chidam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Y. Y. Humne, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 02/08/2022
1. The present petition challenges the order
dated 12.8.2021 passed by the District Judge - 16,
Nagpur whereby the application for condonation of delay
filed by the petitioner, who was the original defendant in
Special Civil Suit No.464 of 2004 a suit for specific
performance, which was decreed on 7.4.2007 has been
rejected, on the ground that there is no sufficient cause
explained for the delay of 10 years and 7 months in filing
of the appeal.
2. Mr. Humne, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that after passing of the judgment
and decree in Special Civil Suit No.464 of 2004 on
7.4.2007, since the same was made conditional upon the
plaintiff (respondent) depositing the balance
consideration amount of Rs.75,000/- in the Court within
two months, and the amount was not so deposited, the
(2) 936.wp.4503.2022
application for extension of time was opposed, therefore,
the appeal was not filed, as the litigation was being
contested by the petitioner (defendant) in this Court as
well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court. This reason has
not been accepted by the learned Court below and in my
considered opinion rightly so, for the reason that nothing
prevented the petitioner from having laid a challenge to
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in
Special Civil Suit No.464 of 2004, within the time
limited thereto by the limitation Act. It is not a case, as
the petitioner was not aware of his rights in the matter,
as he was contesting the order granting extension of time
to deposit the balance consideration. The plea that he
was not properly advised by the counsel, does not appeal
to me, as the petitioner cannot be considered to be a
layman in the matter of litigation considering the
chequered history of the litigation. There is no other
reason explaining the delay of 10 years and 7 months,
considering which, I am in agreement with what has
been held by the learned Court below that no sufficient
cause has been spelt out to explain the aforesaid delay.
3. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any
merit and is accordingly rejected.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE Sarkate
Signing Date:05.08.2022
11:19
