Bombay High Court
Ganpat Jaguguru (Jagupuri) ... vs Hari Gulab Gosavi (Deceased) Thr. ... on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Amit Borkar
2023:BHC-AS:32895
4-cra643-2023.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.643 OF 2023
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
Ganpat Jaguguru (Jagupuri) Gosavi
VAIBHAV RAMESH
RAMESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2023.11.01
10:39:17
+0530
Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs &
Ors. ... Applicants
V/s.
Hari Gulab Gosavi Since Deceased
Through Legal Heirs & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. R.D. Phade for the applicants.
Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye with Ms. Gauri Velankar with
Mr. Shantanu Gurav i/by Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye for
respondent No.1A, 3 and 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 31, 2023
P.C.:
1. The applicants-original plaintiffs are challenging order
passed by the lower Appellate Court condoning delay in filing
application to bring legal representatives of appellant No.1,
respondent No.1, respondent No.7 and respondent No.8 on record.
It appears that the applicants had filed Regular Civil Suit No.253
of 2012 seeking declaration of ownership of suit properties and
injunction restraining defendants from creating third party rights.
2. By the judgment and decree dated 20th December 2017, the
suit was decreed. The defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.4
4-cra643-2023.doc
of 2018. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 died on 6 th
March 2019, respondent No.1 died on 30th June 2022, respondent
No.8 died on 22nd September 2021 and respondent No.7 died on
18th January 2023.
3. The respondents filed a pursis on 5th May 2022 informing
about the death of the appellant. On 28th March 2022, respondents
filed pursis informing about death of respondent No.8. On 30 th
January 2023, the respondents filed a pursis informing appellants
about the death of respondent No.7.
4. On 30th January 2023, respondents filed applications for
bringing legal representatives of the appellants and respondents on
record. It is stated that they could not file application due to
COVID-19 pandemic and for the lack of detailed information.
Apart from the said explanation, it is stated that due to illiteracy of
the appellants about the provisions of law and since valuable rights
of immovable properties are involved, delay in bringing legal
representatives on record deserves to be condoned.
5. The applicants objected for the grant of condonation of delay
on the ground that the appellant No.1 and other appellants belong
to same village and that appellants were aware about the death of
other respondents.
6. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order, condoned the
delay on payment of costs of Rs.500/- in each application.
7. The Appellate Court found the explanation furnished by the
respondents as sufficient for condoning the delay. It is well settled
that while condoning delay for bringing legal representatives on
4-cra643-2023.doc
record, the Court must adopt liberal approach. It is neither the
case of the applicants that the delay was caused due to dilatory
tactics adopted by the respondents nor it is the case of the
appellants there is any mala fide reason for causing delay.
8. Moreover, the lower Appellate Court has exercised its
discretion positively. In case of positive exercise of jurisdiction in
relation to condonation of delay, the superior Court's power is
restricted to consider as to whether the impugned order is perverse
or not. The lower Appellate Court having accepted the explanation
as satisfactory, in my opinion, considering valuable rights of the
parties involved in immovable properties, no interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
9. The civil revision application is dismissed. No costs.
10. It is made clear that the observations made in the order shall
not affect the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal on merits.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
