Mahadeo Pandurang Raut vs Prakash Shankar Jagtap And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11888 Bom

                                                                   15-ia-1646-2019.doc
   Sonali


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1646 OF 2019
                                               IN
                               SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 27410 OF 2019


                Mahadeo Pandurang Raut                               ...Applicant
                   Versus
                Prakash Shankar Jagtap & Ors.                        ...Respondents



                Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, i/b. Preeti Walimbe, for the Applicant.

                None for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                Ms. Priyanka Bhadrashete, i/b. N. N. Bhadrashete, for Respondent
                No.3.


                                        CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 21st NOVEMBER 2022

P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Walimbe, learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant.

Digitally2. By order dated 2nd January 2016 passed by the learned signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL District Judge-5, Thane in Civil Miscellaneous Application PATIL Date:

2022.11.24 17:36:29 +0530 No.101 of 2013, the application for condonation of delay in filing

Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 13 th

15-ia-1646-2019.doc Sonali

February 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Vashi in Regular Civil Suit No.312 of 2007 has been

rejected. The Applicant challenged that order by filing Writ

Petition No.3947 of 2016 and withdrew the same with liberty to

file Second Appeal in view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal & Ors. 1.

Thereafter immediately on 7th October 2019, present

application has been filed.

3. Mr. Walimbe states that Applicant was prosecuting the

wrong remedy therefore, there is delay.

4. On 11th March 2020, this Court has issued notice to

Respondents. Despite service, none appears for Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Ms. Priya Bhadrashete, learned Advocate appears for

Respondent No.3.

6. As delay has occurred as the Applicant was prosecuting a

wrong remedy and none has appeared for contesting

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 although served, the contentions

raised in the Interim Application have remained

uncontroverted.

1 2005 1 SCC 436

15-ia-1646-2019.doc Sonali

7. For the above reasons and reasons set out in the Interim

Application, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (a).

8. The Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]