Gorakshnath Sopan Bankar v. Dnyanoba Dagadu Bankar And ORS.

Mayur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11094 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 14039 OF 2024 Gorakshnath Sopan Bankar ...Applicant

Versus

Dnyanoba Dagadu Bankar & Ors.

...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11095 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15625 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15626 OF 2024 ----------------- Ms. Aditi Naikare, for Applicant.

Ms. Shraddha Pawar i/by Mr. Dilip Bodake, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

----------------- CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATED : 18 DECEMBER 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Ms. Sharaddha Pawar, learned counsel appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that an application for deleting the name of Respondent No. 6 has already been filed and

awaits decision, subject to the decision on the Application for condonation of delay. As far as Respondent Nos. 11 to 21 are concerned, learned counsel for the Applicant states that these respondents are supporting the Applicant/Appellant. 3.

Such statement is accepted.

4.

Interim Application No. 11094 of 2024 has been perused. 5.

The Application is filed to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the said Application. The record reveals that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed a reply against such Application for condonation of delay, and learned counsel appearing today opposes the same. 6.

Learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant submits that the Application was e-filed in time. Thereafter, certain office objections were raised, and the removal of these office objections caused the said delay.

7.

These averments are reflected in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the Interim Application, which have been perused. Though Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have raised objections to this Interim Application, in light of the averments made and the submissions advanced, a sufficient

cause to condone such delay has been made out. 8.

It is a fact that this application was e-filed within time. Subsequently, some time was taken to clear the office objections. Such delay cannot be branded as deliberate or intentional. 9.

In the interest of justice the Interim Application is allowed by condoning delay of 25 days in filing the second appeal. 10.

Interim Application is Allowed and Disposed of in the above terms.

(Advait M. Sethna, J.)