Kamrunnisa Bismilla Mulla Deceased ... vs Vishwanath Narayan Bhole And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 24243 Bom

Bombay High Court

Kamrunnisa Bismilla Mulla Deceased ... vs Vishwanath Narayan Bhole And Others on 16 August, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:18633


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           996 WRIT PETITION NO. 5677 OF 2023

                                 Badrunissa Shaikh Hussain
                                           VERSUS
                             Vishwanth Narayan Bhole And Other
                                               ...
                      Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Dhorde Pramod P.
                  Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 7 : Mr. Subodh P. Shah
           Advocate for Respondent No.8 in WP/7349/2023: Mr. Navin S. Shah h/f Mr.
                                          S. S. Patil
               Advocate for Respondent No.7 in WP7349/2023 : Mr. N. V. Dhake
                                               ...

                                          WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3305 OF 2024
                                     IN WP/7349/2023

                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7349 OF 2023
                                           ....

                                              CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

Dated : August 16, 2024 PER COURT :-

1. Heard learned Counsel for both sides.

2. The application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal has

been filed. The applicants, who are third parties, have also moved an

application for leave to file an appeal as third parties under Order 41 Rule

1, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the

judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 440/1979 on

10/02/2003 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon.

3. It is contended that the suit was filed for partition and separate

possession, claiming 1/8th share in the suit property. The suit was

decreed, granting the plaintiff 1/16th share in the suit property. However,

the respondents/appellants before the First Appellate Court, who are third

996 WP 5677-2023

parties to the suit, filed an appeal along with an application for leave to

file the appeal and an application for condonation of a delay of about

eight years. The application for leave to appeal was allowed by the

Appellate Court, which also condoned a delay of 7 years and 29 days. A

writ petition was subsequently preferred before this Court against that

decision. This Court upheld the order granting leave to appeal by

condoning the delay. Thereafter, the application for condonation of

delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was taken up for

consideration. Since the order has already been passed in the

application for condonation of delay in filing the leave to appeal, and

the same has been upheld by this Court, no further explanation is

required for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Considering this,

the Civil Court condoned the delay. There is no error in the order passed

by the District Judge in condoning the delay. I am also informed that the

appeal has already been decided. Therefore, the order passed by the

Appellate Court does not survive.

4. In view of the above, nothing remains in the petitions, and they

stand dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) vj gawade/-.