Bombay High Court

LIMBA DAGDU SASANEversusVITHAL DASU PAUL

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the 108‑day delay in filing the second appeal is condoned and granted the interim relief sought, recognizing the existence of substantial questions of law.

Summary

The applicant filed Civil Application No. 10620/2026 seeking condonation of a 108‑day delay in filing a second appeal, and Civil Application No. 10621/2026 seeking interim relief concerning a warrant issued in Regular Darkhast No. 27 of 2021. The court, after hearing the applicant’s counsel, allowed the condonation of delay and ordered the issuance of an interim order as prayed for. In the second appeal, the appellant raised two substantial questions of law: whether Exhibit 65, the sale deed of the suit property, constitutes a valid agreement to sell, and whether the trial and first appellate courts erred in ignoring Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court directed that the record be called and notice issued to the respondents, with a return date of 09‑10‑2026. An authenticated copy of the order was to be issued to the requesting party.

Issues considered

Whether Exhibit 65, the sale deed of the suit property, is a valid agreement to sell?
Whether the trial court and the first appellate court erred in ignoring Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 91, 92

Subjects

condonation of delay
second appeal
agreement to sell
Indian Evidence Act
interim relief
warrant
civil application

Judgment

                                                          ca10620.26-
                                 -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           1014 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10620 OF 2026
                             WITH
             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10621 OF 2026
                    IN/WITH SAST/25220/2026

                       Limba Dagdu Sasane
                              VERSUS
                          Vithal Dasu Paul
                                  ...
 Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Vinay B. Anjanwatikar h/f Mr. Akash P.
                               Kadam
                                  …..

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

PER COURT :-


1.       The civil application No. 10620 of2026 is filed for

condonation of delay of 108 days caused in filing the second appeal.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant. For the reasons stated in

the application, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

“A” and disposed of.



2.       In second appeal, heard learned advocate for the appellant.

He pointed out the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court

as well as the first appellate court.    Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and the arguments of learned advocate for

the appellant, following substantial questions of law arise for

consideration:-
                                                                ca10620.26-
                                      -2-



       I.    Whether Exh.65 sell deed of the suit property is valid

             agreement to sell?



       II.   Whether the trial court and the first appellate court erred in

             ignoring sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?



3.            Admit.    Call for record and proceedings. Issue notice to

the respondents, returnable on 09.10.2026.



4.            In so far as the civil application No. 10621 of 2026 is

concerned, considering the fact that the warrant has been issued by

order dated 7.9.2026 by the executing court in Regular Darkhast No.

27 of 2021, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause

“A” of the said civil application.



 5.           Issue authenticated copy of this order to the requesting

party.



                                       (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…