Bombay High Court
Lakshmiputra Karbasappa Tolnur vs Vastushodh Erectors L L P Thorugh Its ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
5-SA-437-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.437 OF 2025
Lakshmiputra Karbasappa Tolnur ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.422 OF 2025
Nilesh Ramesh Kolhalkar ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.423 OF 2025
Pandharinath Dnyaneshwar Mahajan ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.418 OF 2025
Nilesh Wamanrao Gangane ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.421 OF 2025
Amol Ramdas Pathare ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
Vaibhav Page No. 1
::: Uploaded on - 13/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:20:00 :::
5-SA-437-2025.doc
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.420 OF 2025
Nikhil Jagannath Lokhande ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.417 OF 2025
Nivrutti Hanumant Katurde ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO.419 OF 2025
Sandeep Ambadas Bhoyar ...Appellant
Versus
Vastushodh Erectors L L P
Thorugh Its Partner Sachin
Balkrishna Kulkarni ...Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Prashant Aher, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sushil Nimbkar, for the Respondent.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 12th AUGUST 2025
P.C.:
1. This Court by earlier order has framed following substantial
questions of law:-
(a) Whether the learned Maharashtra Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has passed the impugned
order dismissing the delay condonation application
filed by the Appellant without considering reasons
5-SA-437-2025.doc
assigned for the delay?
(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal should
have allowed the delay condonation application?
2. As substantial questions of law framed in all these Second
Appeals are the same, all these 8 Second Appeals are taken up for final
hearing together. Both the learned Counsel also submitted that even the
factual aspects concerning the dispute in all these Second Appeals are
also almost identical.
3. Before considering the substantial questions of law framed by this
Court, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects:-
(i) On 13th September 2022, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, Mumbai disposed of about 21 complaints by common order.
The present respective Appellant are aggrieved by certain directions, in
more particularly operative part (d) of the said order and therefore they
have filed respective Appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal on
11th July 2023.
(ii) As there is delay in filing the said Appeal the delay condonation
Application has been filed in the respective Appeals. In the delay
condonation Application, the reasons given by the respective Appellants
are that Appellants were not knowing any lawyer based in Mumbai
practicing before the learned Appellate Tribunal and therefore time was
required for contacting Advocate practicing in Mumbai before the
5-SA-437-2025.doc
learned Appellate Tribunal and due to the same there is delay in filing
the Appeal.
4. As the delay is not exorbitant and sufficient explanation is given
for condonation of the same, Mr. Nimbkar, learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent, after taking instructions, states that if reasonable
cost is paid by the respective Appellant then Respondent has no
objection for condonation of delay.
5. In any case, as set out hereinabove sufficient explanation has
been given by the respective Appellant for the delay. There is no
material on record to show that the explanation given is not genuine
explanation.
6. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are allowed by setting aside the
impugned Judgment and Order dated 3rd April 2025 passed in
Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay filed in
respective Appeals before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, on
the condition that the respective Appellant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/-
in each of these Appeals. Such cost is to be paid within a period of 2
weeks from today.
7. Resultantly, the delay caused in filing the respective Appeals
before the learned Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
is condoned subject to payment of said cost. Accordingly, all Appeals are
restored to the file of learned Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate
5-SA-437-2025.doc
Tribunal, Mumbai.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits in
respective Appeals and all contentions on merits are expressly kept
open.
9. Both the parties will appear before the learned Appellate Tribunal
on 8th September, 2025.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
