Smt. Manisha Bhagwan More(Since ... vs Smt. Hemlata Harishchanra Patil ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12729 Bom

                                                                         16-SA-435-2019.doc


                      Arjun


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         Digitally
         signed by
         ARJUN
         VITTHAL
                                      SECOND APPEAL NO.435 OF 2019
ARJUN
VITTHAL  KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date:
         2022.12.08
         17:54:40
         +0530
                      Smt. Manisha Bhagwan More                    ...Appellant
                      (Since deceased by her LR's)
                      Shri. Shailesh Bhagwan More


                              V/s.
                      Smt. Hemlata Harishchandra Patil & Ors. ...Respondents



                      Mr. Gautam T. Kanchanpurkar, for the Appellant.
                      Mr. Satyajeet H. Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                                              CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2022

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Gautam T. Kanchanpurkar, learned counsel

appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Satyajeet H. Joshi,

learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. This Second Appeal is filed to challenge the legality and

validity of order dated 15th October, 2018 passed by the

learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Palghar in Civil Misc.

Application No.06 of 2016.

16-SA-435-2019.doc

3. By the impugned order, the Application for condonation

of delay in filing the Appeal challenging judgment and decree

dated 17th November, 1998 passed by learned Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Palghar in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 1987

is rejected. The delay in filing the said Appeal is of about 27

years 1 month and 27 days.

4. The learned Appellate Court while dismissing the

Application has relied on R.T.S. Appeal No.48 of 2012 which

was dismissed by order dated 20th September, 2012 passed

by Additional District Collector, Dahanu Division, Dahanu.

The said Appeal was inter alia dismissed on the ground that

the R.C.S. Appeal No. 13 of 1987 was dismissed on 17 th

November, 1988.

5. The learned Appellate Court has observed that, atleast

since the year 2012, the Appellant was having knowledge of

the impugned judgment and decree dated 17 th November,

1988. There is no perversity or illegality shown in the

impugned order.

6. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)