Bombay High Court

PANDURANG RAMA KOLI DIED THR LRS SUDHAKAR PANDURANG KOLI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court held that the delay was not deliberate, condoned it, and restored the dismissed first appeals.

Summary

The petitioners filed civil applications seeking restoration of four first appeals (Nos. 1143, 1144, 1145, and 1146 of 2014) and condonation of a 3,034‑day delay. The High Court had earlier ordered the appellants to pay bhatta charges by 31 October 2014, failing which the appeals would be dismissed in default; the appellants did not comply and the appeals were dismissed. The petitioners argued that the failure to pay was due to an oversight by their counsel and not their fault, and therefore should not suffer the consequences. The State opposed the condonation, contending there was no sufficient reason for such a long delay. The Court found the delay was not deliberate, that the merits of the claims needed to be decided, and in the interest of justice allowed the applications, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals to their original stages.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 3,034 days in filing applications for restoration of dismissed appeals can be condoned.
Whether appeals dismissed for non‑payment of bhatta charges may be restored despite the default.
Whether the petitioners' lack of fault for the delay justifies condonation.

Subjects

restoration of appeal
condonation of delay
bhatta charges
default dismissal
civil procedure

Judgment

                                         953 FA NO. 2449 OF 2010.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            953 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2010

  Gunderao Narsu Kokare Died Thr. Lrs Chandrabhaga And Anr.
                             VERSUS
                 The State Of Mahrashtra And Ors
                                ...
Mr. Gore Ravindra Vitthal, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. G. Sangle, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. Krishna G. Narwade h/for Mr. R. C. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.2
                              WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1143 OF 2014WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2145 OF 2013WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2446 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2478 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2554 OF 2011WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2144 OF 2013WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2555 OF 2011WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11615 OF 2023 IN FA/1145/2014WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2010WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11612 OF 2023 IN FA/1143/2014WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2556 OF 2011WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2013WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2447 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2010WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11613 OF 2023 IN FA/1144/2014WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2014WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2110 OF 2010WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 540 OF 2010WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2010WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2109 OF 2010WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2010WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11614 OF 2023 IN FA/1146/2014WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2010WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2013WITH
             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2014WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9621 OF 2008 IN FA/2386/2010WITH

                                                            1 of 4
                                   (( 2 ))        953 FA NO. 2449 OF 2010


                FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2010WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2112 OF 2010WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2014WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2111 OF 2010WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2450 OF 2010WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2014WITH
               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2386 OF 2010WITH
                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2445 OF 2010
                               ….

                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                        DATE : 08.04.2026
PER COURT :-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11615 OF 2023
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11613 OF 2023
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11612 OF 2023
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11614 OF 2023

1.        These are the applications for restoration of First Appeal

Nos.1145 of 2014, 1144 of 2014, 1143 of 2014 and 1146 of 2014 to

their original position as well as for condonation of delay of 3034

days caused in filing the present applications.


2.        Heard learned advocate for the applicants and the learned

AGP for the Respondents/State.


3.        Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that, by an

order dated 10.10.2014, this Court directed the appellants to pay

Bhatta charges on or before 31st October, 2014, failing which matters

shall stand dismissed against unserved respondents, without referring


                                                                   2 of 4
                                   (( 3 ))      953 FA NO. 2449 OF 2010


back to the Court. However, the appellants failed to comply with the

said directions, and the appeals came to be dismissed in default. He

submitted that due to oversight, the advocate for the applicants could

not note the said office objection and failed to pay the Bhatta charges

within time. He further submitted that the applicants were not

responsible for removal of the office objections, and due to the

mistake of the advocate, the clients should not suffer. He prayed to

allow the applications.


4.        Learned AGP for the respondent/State strongly opposed the

applications and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to

condone the delay. He prayed to reject the applications.


5.        Perused the applications.      This Court, by order dated

10.10.2014, passed a conditional order directing the appellants to pay

Bhatta charges on or before 31st October, 2014, failing which the

matters would stand dismissed against the unserved respondents

without further reference to the Court. However, the appellants failed

to pay the Bhatta charges within the stipulated time, and therefore,

the first appeals came to be dismissed in default. Considering that the

delay in filing the present applications is not deliberate and that the

lis of the claimants has to be decided on merits, the present

                                                                 3 of 4
                                    (( 4 ))       953 FA NO. 2449 OF 2010


applications deserve to be allowed in the interest of justice. Hence,

the following order:

                               ::ORDER::

a.         The applications are allowed.

b.         The delay of 3034 days caused in filing the applications for

           restoration of the first appeals is condoned.

c.         First Appeal Nos.1145 of 2014, 1144 of 2014, 1143 of 2014

           and 1146 of 2014 are restored to their original stages.

First Appeal No.1145 of 2014,
First Appeal No.1144 of 2014,
First Appeal No.1143 of 2014,
First Appeal No.1146 of 2014

1.         Issue notice to the respondents.

2.         Learned AGP waives notice for respondent No.1/State.

Learned Advocate Mr. Krishna G. Narwade h/for learned Advocate

Mr. R. C. Patil, waives notice for Respondent No.2.

3.         The arguments of the learned advocate for the appellants

and the learned AGP for respondent No.1/State are over. For the

reply to the arguments of the learned Advocate for respondent No.2,

stand over to 18.04.2026 at 02:30.



                                  [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav



                                                                   4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…