Nattu S/O. Narayan Bhojne ... vs Shrawan Narayan Mule Died Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10672 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:22282
                                                                                    50-sa-411-2023.odt
                                                       (1)


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       SECOND APPEAL NO.411 OF 2023
                                      WITH CA/9479/2023 IN SA/411/2023

                                NATTU S/O. NARAYAN BHOJNE (TIRMALI)
                                                  VERSUS
                           SHRAWAN NARAYAN MULE DIED THROUGH LRS SMT.
                                    SHENPHADABAI SHRAWAN MULE
                                                      ...
                             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Laxman Vishnu Sangit
                                                      ...
                                                       CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 16, 2023

PER COURT:-

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The suit for specific performance of contract was filed

against the appellant. The suit summons were sent, but the appellant

refused. Therefore, the suit proceeded exparte and decree for specific

performance of contract was passed against him on 22.07.2005.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that one

of the legal heirs of the plaintiff in R.C.S. No.186 of 2000 had filed a

suit in the year 2014 bearing R.C.S. No.23 of 2014. The appellant

was the defendant to that suit. When he had gone through the papers

and documents, he learnt in the year 2014 that the decree for specific

performance of contract was passed against him on 22.07.2005. He

then immediately impugned the said Judgment and decree along with

the delay condonation application contending that from the date of

50-sa-411-2023.odt

knowledge, the delay was of 16 months. However, the learned

District Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant had no knowledge about the Judgment and decree passed

in Civil Suit No.186 of 2000 dated 22.07.2005. This was the only

ground raised for the condonation of delay. It has been tried to argue

that the cause of action to prefer the appeal reckoned in the year

2014, the delay was not longer.

5. The law prescribes that the limitation to impugn the

Judgment and decree begins to run from the date of the Judgment

and decree. That apart, there shall be convincing reasons restraining

the party from approaching to the Court. Having no knowledge of

passing the impugned Judgment and decree does not inspire

confidence that it was a plausible reason. The appellant had refused

the suit summons of R.C.S. No.186 of 2000.

6. In view of the facts of the case, the Court did not find any

substantial question of law has been involved in this appeal. Hence,

the appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage.

7. Civil Application No.9479 of 2023 stands disposed of.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//