[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O Bhaurao Bhandare vs Ratnabai W/O Manoharrao Kamade And ... on 8 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:213
1 19-SA 147.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2025
( Gajanan s/o Bhaurao Bhandare vs. Sau. Ratnabai w/o Manoharrao Kamade and another )
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Mrs. Meena Hiwase, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Manoj Sable, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
JANUARY 08, 2026
1) Application for condonation of delay of around 07
years and 10 months caused in filing First Appeal came to be
rejected by the learned First Appellate Court, which is the subject
matter of challenge in the present Second Appeal.
2) The original plaintiff is daughter of defendant No.1
and sister of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The present appeal is
preferred by the original defendant No.3. The plaintiff had filed
a suit for partition and separate possession against her father and
brothers. The said suit was filed on 09/01/2012 and was
registered as R.C.S.No.01/2012. The defendants i.e., father and
brothers, had filed a written statement opposing the suit;
however, they did not conduct cross-examination of the plaintiff
and also did not lead any independent evidence. The suit was
decreed vide judgment and order dated 14/10/2016. Thereafter,
the present appellant/defendant No.3 had filed an appeal
challenging the said decree along with an application for
condonation of delay bearing Misc. Civil Application
No.41/2024. The delay as stated above is of 07 years, 10
months and 06 days. The delay was sought to be explained,
contending that the father alone was looking after the litigation
and, therefore, appellant/defendant No.3 was not aware about
KOLHE
2 19-SA 147.2025.odt
the developments in the said litigation. It is stated that the
father had expired on 11/09/2018. The contention is that
knowledge about the decree was gathered upon being served
with a notice in the execution proceeding filed by the plaintiff.
3) The learned First Appellate Court has observed that
the father was around 82 years old at the time of his demise and,
therefore, explanation that father alone was looking after the
litigation was not believable. As regards the date of knowledge
upon receipt of a notice in the execution proceeding, the learned
First Appellate Court has recorded that the said notice was
received by the appellant/defendant No.3 on 04/02/2020. The
application for condonation of delay and appeal were filed on
21/08/2024. Thus, there is a delay of around four and half
years from the date of knowledge of the decree as well, for
which no explanation was offered. It is also to be noted that the
father had died on 11/09/2018 i.e. before a period of around
one and half year from the date of receipt of a notice in
execution proceeding. Despite receiving notice of the execution
in the year 2020, the present appellant/defendant No.3 did not
take effective steps for challenging the decree.
4) Thus, no reason was assigned seeking condonation of
delay of 07 years and 10 months caused in filing First Appeal.
Even from the date of knowledge i.e. from 04/02/2020, no
reason is assigned for condonation of delay. The order passed by
the learned First Appellate Court rejecting the application for
condonation of delay is, therefore, just and proper. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second
Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/01/2026 18:35:19
