Chagan Rajaram Mahadik And ANR. v. Vijay Kashinath Tetambe
Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:
2024.03.04 14:57:01 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Chitra Sonawane 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No.581 of 2023
1. Chagan Rajaram Mahadik Age:75, Occ.-Business
2. Manisha Rajaram Raut Age:69, Occ.-Housewife (Both R/at:B/101, Akshata Apartment Chandan Wadi, Almeida Road, Thane (West), Thane-400602)
3. Shashikant Rajaram Mahadik (deceased) Rajesh Shashikant Mahadik (LR) Age: 55years; Occ.-Business Prakash Rajaram Mahadik Age:71 years; Occ.-Business Both R/at:Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Dist.-Ratnagiri .... Appellants.
Vs.
Vijay Kashinath Tetambe Age : 67, Residing at Shivadip at Markandi, Chiplun
Chitra Sonawane 2 District-Ratnagiri, Pin code-415605 ...
Respondent.
Mr Vidyadhar Raut for appellant.
Mr Rajesh Sahani i/by Vijayprakash Yadav for respondent. Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.
Date : 23 February 2024.
P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The appellant has preferred this appeal for setting aside order of dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2020 for default on 30.10.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Chiplun on 28.03.2023, observing therein that the application for restoring the appeal should have been filed within 30 days from the date of dismissal, under Article 122 of the Limitation Act. The restoration application was filed before the District Judge, Chiplun on 28.03.2023 i.e. after 1 year 3 months and 28 days. The said application was not accompanied with the delay condonation application. The applicant was informed by the learned District Court that proceeding cannot be registered unless it is accompanied with delay condonation application showing sufficient cause. Despite this, applicant has not preferred any delay condonation application. Resultantly, the office of District Judge has taken objection
Chitra Sonawane 3 about limitation. Since the application for restoration was not accomapnied with delay condonation application, the learned District Judge dismissed the same under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. There appears no infirmity in the order and same stands endorsed. In view of this, the appeal from order stands dismissed.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]