Ramchandra Chiman Bahiram And ORS. v. Guntabai Govinda Gangurde
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:
2023.08.17 19:12:05 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2951 OF 2019 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.29562 OF 2019 Ramchandra Chiman Bahiram ...Applicant V/s.
Guntabai Govinda Gangurde & Anr.
...Respondents
Ms. Pooja Satpute i/b Tushar Sonawane, for the Applicant.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 9, 2023 P.C.:
1.
Heard Ms. Satpute, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. None appears for the Respondents, although af<davit in reply is <led to the delay condonation Application. The Interim Application is <led seeking condonation of delay of one year and 190 days in <ling the Second Appeal. 2.
The impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court is dated 14th October 2018 and the present Second Appeal alongwith delay condonation Application has been <led on 21st November 2019. The reasons are given in
paragraph 4 of the Civil Application. The said paragraph 4 reads as under :
"4. The applicant states that he is old aged person more than 80 years old, a tribal person and illiterate. The applicant was not aware of the order under challenge passed by the Appellate Court on 14/02/2018 as the same was not intimated by the Appellate Court advocate. He appeared in Darkhast for the <rst time in 2019 in Regular Darkhast No. 26/2018 upon receipt of summons wherein he engaged advocate. After the advocate who appeared in the Darkhast, the applicant got aware of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court. The applicant is tribal person. He was not aware about the further challenge to be given again to the said order thereafter.
As per the advice of the Executing court advocate, the applicant was made aware that the said order of appellate Court to be challenged in the higher court again so as to protect the possession when the applicant had consulted the said advocate about what to do in the matter when the possession warrant issued by the executing court and the bailiff had attempted to take possession on 07/09/2019. The applicant had no details of the appellate court advocate as he had lost the visiting card and also couldn't contact on telehpone. After the due search thereafter, the applicant went to the appellate court advocate and applied CC of order on 21/09/2019 and received the same on 22/10/2019.
Thereafter, the applicant contacted the present advocate in Second week of November 2019 and he has been advised to <le the second appeal against the 14/10/2018 order. Therefore, in such a circumstance the appellant could not <le the appeal within stipulated period of time. In such a circumstances the delay on such a bona<de ground is require to be condone. The applicant craves leaves and rely and refer upon the various documents in criminal proceedings as and when require."
3.
Af<davit in reply has been <led by Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has stated that the Applicant has appeared in Regular Darkhast and the present Appeal has been <led on 21st November, 2019 and, therefore, there is no explanation for said period from 17th January 2019 to 21st November 2019. However, perusal of paragraph No.4 which is set out hereinabove shows that the Bailiff had attempted to take possession on 7th September 2019 and, thereafter, the Applicant applied for certi<ed copies of the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 21st September 2019 and the same was received on 22nd October 2019 and, thereafter, the Appeal has been <led on 21st November 2019.
4.
Therefore, suf<cient reasons are assigned for condonation of delay. For the reasons set out in the Interim Application, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
5.
The Interim Application is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]