[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chaturbhuj Mohanlal Paliwal vs Nanebai Gahudas Sontakke (Dead) Thr. ... on 8 January, 2026
1 70. SA 05 of 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.19 OF 2026
CHATURBHUJ MOHANLAL PALIWAL
VERSUS
NANEBAI GAHUDAS SONTAKKE (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders
Coram, Appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders
Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Appellant.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATED : 08th JANUARY 2026
1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant.
2. By this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., the appellant
raises challenge to the order dated 01.01.2026, passed by District
Judge-1, Warora, Dist. Chandrapur, in Misc. Civil Application No.20 of
2024, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing
appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the
appellant had filed an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. by
challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the
Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora, in Special Civil
Suit No.15 of 2012, along with an application for condonation of
delay demonstrating sufficient cause. However, without affording an
opportunity of leading evidence, the first appellate court rejected the
application for condonation of delay and resultantly, the appellant is
deprived from raising challenge to the judgment of the trial court on
merits. In support of her submissions, she relies on judgment of this
2 70. SA 05 of 2026.odt
Court in the case of Holya Lasha Mahale and Another Vs. Raghunath
Holya Mahale, [2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 81].
4. In view of this, issue notice to the respondents on the
following substantial questions of law.
i) Whether the impugned order passed by the
first appellate court deciding the application for
condonation of delay without affording an
opportunity to lead evidence to the applicant is
sustainable in law ?
ii) Whether the rejection of the application for
condonation of delay in filing first appeal, without
due consideration to the substantive and valuable
rights of the appellant/bonafide purchaser, depicts a
hyper technical approach resulting into miscarriage
of justice ?
5. Notice be returnable after two weeks.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.19 OF 2026
6. This is an application filed by the appellant under
Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, for grant of stay to the effect and operation of
the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Court of
2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora, in Special Civil Suit
No.15 of 2012.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the
appellant is bonafide purchaser of the suit property, who has
3 70. SA 05 of 2026.odt
purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale-deed and by
paying valuable consideration. It is submitted that the sale-deed with
respect to the suit property is likely to be executed pursuant to the
impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the trial
court and since the same is with respect to the property owned by the
appellant, interim relief is prayed for.
8. In view of this, issue notice to the respondents, returnable
after two weeks.
9. The appellant is permitted to serve the respondents by
private mode, in addition to regular mode of service, including service
on the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/s
before the executing court and file affidavit of service in that regard
by next date and also permitted to serve the respondents by way of
Humdast.
10. In the meantime, by way of ad-interim relief, it is directed
that the execution of judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed
by 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora, in Special Civil Suit
No.15 of 2012, shall remain stayed, till next date.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
asd
