Bombay High Court
Sou.Ratnamala Vijay Jadhav vs Sursing Bhujangrao Jadhav 1) ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
51-IA-137-2019.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2019
ARJUN
VITTHAL
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR IN
KUDHEKAR Date:
2022.12.20 SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.25178 OF 2019
19:37:01
+0530
Sou. Ratnamala Vijay Jadhav ...Applicant/
Appellant
V/s.
Sursing Bhujangrao Jadhav ...Respondents
Deceased through legal heirs
1. Sou. Ashwini Pradeep Pawar & Ors.
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the Applicant.
Mr. Hanif Shaikh, for the Respondents.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant and Mr. Hanif Shaikh, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents.
2. This Interim Application is taken out for condonation of
delay in filing the Second Appeal.
3. The learned First Appellate Court passed Judgment
and Decree dated 16th November, 2017 and Appeal has been
lodged on 4th September, 2019. There is delay of about 1 year
and 190 days in filing the Second Appeal.
51-IA-137-2019.doc
4. The reasons for delay are mentioned in paragraph nos.
3, 4 and 5. The said paragraphs read as under:
"3. The Applicant states that she is a lady is of age
around 60 years, and she is having one son and
daughter. Since last two years, a dispute has been
arised in the family between the son and daughter
of the Applicant, out of the property and her
husband is retired person. Therefore in such
circumstances entire family members are stating
that this Litigation is of the present Applicant and
they do not want to look in the Litigation.
4. The Applicant states that thus in such
circumstances, while the Judgment and Order has
been passed by the Learned Appellate Court Ad-
hoc District Judge-I, Pune, she was not feeling well
around that time and therefore she did not attend
the Court and thus could not contacted to her
Advocate.
5. The Applicant states that thus in such
circumstances, since she did not contacted the
Advocate she was under impression that the
matter i.e. Civil Appeal No.1018 of 2012 is awaiting
for Final Hearing and yet Judgment and Order has
not been passed. However, the Applicant states
that since some time her son and husband used to
look after the above referred Civil Appeal No.1018
of 2012 and was in touch and therefore she was
under impression that they might be in touch with
51-IA-137-2019.doc
the Advocate, however, since due to the dispute
between the family members for the property,
even they did not enquired about the matter."
5. The Respondents have filed affidavit-in-reply to oppose
the delay condonation Application. In paragraph 4 of said
affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that, after the Appeal was
upheld by the District Court, the Respondents approached
the Applicant with money requesting her to accept the same
and restore the property but she refused.
6. The reasons given in paragraph nos. 3 to 5 are
sufficient reasons, nothing is brought to my notice to
demonstrate that the reasons given in said paragraphs are
incorrect.
7. Therefore, the Interim Application is allowed in terms
of prayer clause [A] subject to Applicant paying cost of
Rs.25000/- which will be paid to Respondent No.1-Sou.
Ashwini Pradeep Pawar and the said payment will be
accepted by her for her behalf and on behalf of all the
Respondents.
8. The Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
51-IA-137-2019.doc
