Bombay High Court

AMMENABI MIR HUSSAIN KHAN DIED THROUGH LRS MAHMOODABI AND OTHERSversusDATTU SANTU BUDDHA DIED THROUGH LRS SUDAM DATTU SALVE AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the application should be allowed and the cross objection restored to its original position.

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 6,326‑day delay to restore a cross objection (stamp No. 10843 of 1980) and set aside an order dated 15‑04‑2009. The cross objection had been withdrawn after the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, but the applicant argued that the withdrawal was due to a mistake and that justice required its restoration. The respondent‑appellant opposed the application, contending that the delay was unexplained and that there were no sufficient grounds to condone it. The court examined the facts, noted that the cross objection was withdrawn because the appeal was dismissed, and, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M.D.A. Chaudhary v. Kartar Chand, held that the interest of justice warranted allowing the application. Consequently, the court allowed the application, restoring the cross objection to its original position.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 6,326 days in filing an application for restoration of a cross objection can be condoned.
Whether a cross objection withdrawn due to dismissal of an appeal can be restored.
Whether the interest of justice justifies condoning such a delay and restoring the objection.

Subjects

cross objection
condonation of delay
restoration of objection
civil procedure
interest of justice
appeal dismissed
high court

Judgment

                                                        ca10520.26
                                 -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10520 OF 2026
                     IN X-OBJST/10843/1980

 Ammenabi Mir Hussain Khan Died Through Lrs Mahmoodabi And
                                Others
                              VERSUS
   Dattu Santu Buddha Died Through Lrs Sudam Dattu Salve And
                                Others
                                   ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Faij Khan
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2b, 2c To 2f, 2ha In SA : Mr. R.H.
Wagh
Advocate for appellant Nos. 1a, 2a To 2e, 3a To 3e in SA : Mrs.
Preeti Wankhede
Advocate for Respondent No.2b in SA : Mr. A.R. Syed
Advocate for Respondent No. 2/a/a in SA : Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba
Gulam Mustafa
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1/2/h/c in SA: Ms. Sangita Desarda

                              …..
                             WITH
                SECOND APPEAL NO. 406 OF 1980
                             WITH
              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8574 OF 2022

                    CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                    DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-


1.       The civil application No. 10520 of 2026 is filed for

condonation of delay of 6326 days caused in filing the application

seeking restoration of cross objection stamp No. 10843 of 1980 and

for setting aside the order dated 15.04.2009.



2.       Perused the application. Heard learned advocates for both
                                                               ca10520.26
                                   -2-

sides.    Considering the fact that the appeal was dismissed on

6.7.2006 and therefore, learned advocate for the cross objectors

submitted that the since the appeal was dismissed for want of

prosecution, learned advocate for the respondents-cross objectors

withdrawn that cross objection but subsequently the appeal is again

restored. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the cross

objection is not dismissed in default but only because of the mistake

of the advocate in not filing the application for restoration of the cross

objection immediately his cross objection cannot be dismissed on

account of huge delay. He submitted that the interest of justice is

required to be protected by restoring the cross objection. He lastly

prayed to allow the application.



3.        Learned advocate for the appellant strongly opposed the

application and submitted that the delay is not properly explained.

There are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. On the basis

of the cross objection the substantial questions of law is not formed.

At the fag end of the arguments, this application has been filed

without any justification to restore the cross objection. It is submitted

that the application deserves to be rejected, as there is no sufficient

reason.



4.        On perusal of the application and after hearing the
                                                             ca10520.26
                                    -3-

arguments of learned advocates for the respective parties, it is crystal

clear that the cross objection filed by the respondent was withdrawn

because the appeal was dismissed. It is not that cross objection was

dismissed for non compliance of the office objection or absence of

the learned advocate for the applicant. The appeal is filed in the year

1980. The litigation started in the year 1970. To decide the lis finally

on merits and in the interest of justice, on the basis of the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.D.A.

Chaudhary vs. Kartar Chand and Others, MANU/SC/0877/2025

the application deserves to be allowed.            The application is

accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses “B” and “C”. Cross

objection is restored to its original position.



5.        Learned advocate for the appellant and the respondents

are heard, except Mr. A.R. Vaidya, learned advocate for respondent.



6.        Stand over to 21.09.2026 at 10.30 a.m.



                                     (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…