Bombay High Court
Shevanti Kalu Gund vs Kisan Marhya Ravate on 4 September, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:37225 911 SA 355.25.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.355 OF 2025
Shevanti Kalu Gund ...Appellant
Versus
Kisan Marhya Ravate ...Respondent
Mr. Gautam Jasraj Jain, Advocate for Appellant.
None for the Respondent
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 4th September 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. A learned Single Judge, by Order dated 16 th June 2025 has
framed following substantial question of law :
"1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified
in rejecting the delay condonation Application of the
Appellants, who claim to be Adivasi and contend that
they were not given notice of the hearing; especially
when their Advocate remained absent and the Lower
Appellate Court has proceeded to hold that everywhere
in the country, including in the villages and cities,
people are using mobile phones, therefore the
Appellants could have checked the status of the legal
proceedings from any place?"
2. By the said Order dated 16th June 2025 the learned Single
Judge has issued notice for final disposal.
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
3. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant states
that the Respondent has been served, however, none appears for
the Respondents.
4. In the Second Appeal, the challenge is to the legality and
validity of the Order dated 21st March 2025 passed by the learned
District Judge-21, Bhiwandi below Exhibit-1 in Civil Miscellaneous
Application No. 18 of 2024.
5. By the impugned Order, the said Miscellaneous Application
has been rejected. The said Misc. Application has been filed
seeking condonation of delay of about 9 months in filing the
Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30 th June 2023
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jawhar in
Regular Civil Suit No. 9 of 2017.
6. As already noted there is delay of 9 months in filing the
Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court by the said
impugned Judgment dated 21st March 2025. The said delay
condonation application has been rejected by the learned First
Appellate Court. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that the Appellants are illiterate Adivasi ladies and they
have no knowledge about the limitation of filing the Appeal and
the delay is not deliberate or intentional.
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
7. The learned First Appellate Court while rejecting delay
condonation application has observed that the proceedings of the
Court regarding dates, Orders are made online and in India in the
villages and in the cities, the people are using mobile phones and
they can check their status of proceeding at any time from any
place. The Applicants had not contacted their Advocate and they
remained absent in the proceeding without any valid reason. It has
been further observed that the Appellants have not produced any
documents regarding their health and therefore, sufficient reasons
are not given for delay condonation.
8. In view of above reasoning of the learned First Appellate
Court, the learned Single Judge has framed above substantial
question of law.
9. Perusal of record shows that the impugned Judgment and
Decree of the learned Trial Court is dated 30 th June 2023, the
Appellants sought certified copy of the same on 1 st January 2024
on urgent basis and received the same on 1 st January 2024.
Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay along with
Appeal was filed on 6th May 2024. While explaining the delay of 9
months in filing the Appeal, the Appellants have given following
reasons :
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
"F. Applicants-defendants state that the delay is
caused because of bona fide mistake of date as they
were unaware about the dates of the matter and also,
they were sick and not well. They were not aware
about dates and stage of the matter. They are illiterate
Adivasi ladies. They have no legal knowledge. They
were not intimated by their advocate about the dates
and stage of the matter. It is seen from the record that
when the matter was called on for cross-examination
of the opponent-plaintiff, the advocate for the
applicants-defendants had submitted to the court that
he is not in contact with the applicants-defendants, but
he had not issued any notice to the applicants-
defendants at any point of time. Also, the trial court
had not issued any notices to the applicants-defendants
on its own motion. In such circumstances, the
applicants- defendants were not aware about the dates
and stage of the matter and they had bona fide mistake
of dates.
G. That the applicants-defendants got the
knowledge about the judgment and decree been
passed in the said matter on and around 30/12/2024
when the people in the vicinity talked to them about
rumors of some kind of judgment being passed against
them; and thereupon they enquired about the matter
with their advocate. Thereupon they obtained the
certified copies of judgment and decree of the matter
on 01/01/2024 on urgent basis and asked their
advocate to prefer appeal against the same. However,
their advocate told them to approach a suitable
advocate of Bhiwandi as the appeal is required to be
filed at Bhiwandi. Thereafter they approached the
advocate on record at Bhiwandi to file the appeal. The
said advocate after taking some time for perusing the
matter asked them to obtain some more documents of
the matter. Thereafter they again obtained the certified
copies of related documents of the suit from court on
29/02/2024 and also some revenue record relating to
the matter. Thereafter, certain period is lapsed in
between due to illness of the applicants-defendants,
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
due to inconvenience to travel to long distance from
Jawhar to Bhiwandi and due to miscommunication
with advocate on record After all the said troubles, the
applicants-defendants are now filing this appeal before
this Hon'ble Court."
(Emphasis added)
10. Thus, the Appellants have stated that they could not remain
present before the learned Trial Court as they were not aware
about the dates. They are illiterate Adivasi ladies, they have no
legal knowledge and they were not intimated by their Advocate
about the dates and and stage of the matter.
11. It has been further stated that when the matter was called
out for cross-examination of the Plaintiff, the Advocate for the
Appellants i.e. the Defendants submitted to the Court that he is not
in contact with the Defendants, however, it is contended that the
said Advocate has not communicated anything to the Defendant
and no letter has been sent to the Defendants. Explanation is given
for the period of 1st January 2024 to 6th May 2024.
12. Thus, it is very clear that the learned First Appellate Court
has without considering detailed reasons given by the Appellants
seeking delay condonation of about 9 months has dismissed the
delay condonation application. There is nothing on record to
indicate that the delay is deliberate and/or for malafide reason. By
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
the impugned Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court, the
Plaintiffs i.e. the Respondents in the present Second Appeal, have
been declared as owners of the suit property and injunction has
been granted. Thus, no benefit has been derived by the Appellants,
in filing the Appeal, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed
by the learned Trial Court after a period of 9 months.
13. Although the sole Respondent has been served, none
appears for the Respondent. The material on record shows that
there is substance in the substantial question of law framed by the
learned Single Judge by Order dated 16th June 2025. Perusal of the
impugned order and the detailed reasons given for the delay
condonation in the Civil Miscellaneous Application clearly shows
that the detailed reasons given by the Appellants are not
considered by the learned First Appellate Court and therefore, the
impugned order is perverse. As sufficient reasons are given for the
delay condonation and there is nothing on record to indicate that
the delay is deliberate or for malafide reason and the fact that the
Appellants are illiterate Adivasi ladies, case is made out for
condonation of delay of about 9 months in filing the Appeal before
the learned First Appellate Court.
Dusane
911 SA 355.25.DOC
14. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21st
March 2025 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Bhiwandi in
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2024 is quashed and set
aside and said Miscellaneous Application 18 of 2024 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (i). As the delay is condoned, the Appeal
filed before the learned First Appellate Court be registered.
15. The Appellants are at liberty to file stay application in the
said Appeal, which is now directed to be registered before the
learned First Appellate Court.
16. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits
involved in the said Appeal and all contentions on merits of said
Appeal filed before the learned District Judge are expressly kept
open.
17. The Second Appeal is disposed in above terms, with no
order as to costs.
BHALCHANDRA (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
GOPAL DUSANE
Dusane
