Bombay High Court

DNYANESHWAR ANNA AUTI AND ANOTHERversusJAYSHREE VILAS PALANGE AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court condoned the five‑day delay in filing the second appeal as it was not deliberate and granted an ad‑interim stay of possession of the suit property pending further proceedings.

Summary

The petitioners filed two civil applications: one seeking condonation of a five‑day delay in filing a second appeal, and another seeking an ad‑interim stay of execution of two earlier judgments concerning possession of a suit property. The court held that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore condoned it, allowing the second appeal to proceed. It also granted a limited stay of possession of the suit property until the returnable date, while permitting measurement, partition proceedings, and related objections to continue. The stay was intended to preserve the status quo pending resolution of the underlying disputes. Both applications were allowed by the court.

Issues considered

Whether a five‑day delay in filing a second appeal can be condoned under the principles of justice.
Whether an ad‑interim stay of execution of the judgments and decrees can be granted to prevent possession of the suit property pending measurement and partition.

Subjects

condonation of delay
second appeal
stay of execution
ad‑interim stay
possession
measurement
partition
civil procedure

Judgment

                                              966 CA NO. 10937 OF 2026.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
          966 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10937 OF 2026
                     IN SAST/27523/2026

              Dnyaneshwar Anna Auti And Another
                             VERSUS
                Jayshree Vilas Palange And Others
                                ...
Ms. Anjali Dube, Advocate for Applicant
                              WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10938 OF 2026 IN SAST/27523/2026
                                ….

                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                       DATE : 23.09.2026
PER COURT :-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10937 OF 2026

1.          Heard.

2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 5

days caused in filing the Second Appeal.

3.          Perused the application.       For the reasons stated

therein, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of

justice as the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence,

the following order:

                            ::ORDER::

a.        Civil Application is allowed.
b.        The delay of 5 days caused in filing the Second Appeal
          is condoned.


                                                                  1 of 3
                                       (( 2 ))      966 CA NO. 10937 OF 2026


SECOND APPEAL

1.            Heard.

2.            Issue    notice    to   the    respondents,     returnable       on

23.10.2026.

3.            Call Record and Proceedings.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10938 OF 2026

1.        Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants.


2.        This is an application seeking stay to the execution and

implementation of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2026

passed   by    the     learned    District   Judge-2,   Shrigonda       District

Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No.162 of 2019 and the Judgment and Decree

dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, in R.C.S. No.134 of 2007.


3.        Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 23.10.2026.


4.        Learned Advocate for the Applicants pointed out the notice

issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Shrigonda,

informing that the measurement of the suit property is to be carried

out on 28.09.2026. He, therefore, prayed for granting stay to the

execution of the impugned Judgment and Decree.




                                                                      2 of 3
                                   (( 3 ))     966 CA NO. 10937 OF 2026


5.           Perused the application, the impugned Judgment and

Decree and the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be

proper to grant ad-interim stay to the extent of handing over

possession of the suit property. Accordingly, there shall be an ad-

interim stay to the extent of handing over possession of the suit

property till the returnable date. It is clarified that the stay is not

granted against carrying out the measurement, suggesting partition,

hearing the objections to the partition, or finalising the suggested

partition.



                                     [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…