Ahilyabai Ajinath Shinde v. Kundlik Rama Akre Died Lrs Arun And ORS

( 1 ) 87ca11292-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11292 OF 2016 IN SAST NO.24158/2016 AHILYABAI AJINATH SHINDE

VERSUS

KUNDLIK RAMA AKRE DIED LRS. ARUN AND ORS ...

Adv.N.G.Talekar for applicant Adv.K.R.Doke for R.1/1,1/1, 2/1 to 2/5 ...

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11294 OF 2016 IN S.A.ST. NO.24165/2016 AHILYABAI AJINATH SHINDE

VERSUS

KUNDLIK RAMA AKRE DIED LRS. ARUN AND ORS ...

Adv.N.G.Talekar for applicant Adv.K.R.Doke for R.1/1, 1/1, 2/1 to 2/5 ...

CORAM :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE :

22.11.2019 P.C. :- Heard both the sides.

2] In these appeals by the original defendant she is seeking condonation of delay of 106 days in filing it.

3] The learned advocate for the applicant submits that there were no mala fides and the delay has occasioned. Being a destitute lady it would result in lot

( 2 ) 87ca11292-16 of hardships if she is not allowed to prefer the Second Appeal. The delay therefore having been properly explained in the application may be condoned. 4] The learned advocate for the respondents who are the original claimants 1, 2, 2.1 to 2.5 strongly opposes the application. He submits that the delay has not been properly explained. This is Second Appeal. The applicant must have been litigating since inception by keeping a watch on the proceeding not only in the suit but in the First Appeal as well. Therefore the delay may not be condoned.

5] The principles for condonation of delay have been far too well settled by catena of judgments. The decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Versus Mst.Katiji and others; (1987) Vol 2, SCC 107 lays down the guidelines to be followed by the Court while considering applications for condonation of delay. Bearing in mind these principles, I find no sufficient and cogent reason to castigate the applicant as having any mala fides in protracting the litigation by not preferring the Second Appeal in time. She is a lady aged more than 50 years who has been litigating for the right to immovable property. Her claim for specific performance has been dismissed and she would lose her important right if it is not allowed to be decided on merits by refusing to condone the delay.

6] Therefore, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned. 7] Second Appeal be listed for admission on 3/1/2020. [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] umg/