← Library
Bombay High CourtIA/9104/2025allowed

Ganesh Kisanlal Agrwal v. Amol Vikas Jawadekar

2025-12-19Hon'Ble Justice Advait M. Sethna2 pages

10-IA-9104-2025 (C).DOCX PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Pallavi PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.12.19 13:04:37 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9104 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL(ST) NO. 1236 OF 2025 Ganesh Kisanlal Agrwal ...Applicant

Versus

Amol Vikas Jawadekar

...Respondent

______________________________________________________ Mr. K.P. Shah, for Applicant.

Mr. Gurudas S. Gorwadkar, a/w Harshal N. Mule, Varun H. Thanawala and Soham Lande for Respondent.

______________________________________________________ CORAM : Advait M. Sethna, J.

DATED : 19 December 2025 P.C.:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Mr. Gorwadkar, learned counsel appears for all the Respondents in these proceedings. He would submit that though he has instructions to appear for all the Respondents. He would file vakalatnama on or before 22 December 2025. 3.

This is an application to condone the delay of 96 days as stated in the Interim Application. However, the office record would indicate that there is a delay of 113 days in filing the said proceedings.

4.

By an earlier order dated 5 March 2025 the Court

10-IA-9104-2025 (C).DOCX had issued notice to the Respondents returnable on 2 July 2025 after briefly hearing the submissions on merits. 5.

In the above background, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Interim Application. 6.

The reasons for the delay have been set out more particularly in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said application. The delay has been sufficiently explained. Sufficient cause for condonation of such delay has been made out. The averments clearly reveal that the Applicant was bonafide pursuing the proceedings and the delay is thus neither deliberate in nor intentional.

7.

The learned counsel for Respondents opposes this application. However, for all the above reasons and the interest of justice, the Court is inclined to condone the delay and allow the Interim Application.

8.

Interim Application is thus allowed and is Disposed of.

(Advait M. Sethna, J)