Bombay High Court

SITARAM SAMBHAJI DAPPADWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The Registrar’s order refusing registration of the First Appeal is quashed and the appeal is restored, subject to removal of office objections within four weeks.

Summary

The applicant, Sitaram Sambhaji Dappadwad, challenged the Registrar’s order refusing registration of his First Appeal on the ground that the decree from the Trial Court had not been issued during the Covid‑19 pandemic, and therefore he could not deposit it. He argued that the failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time was a consequence of the pandemic‑induced delay. The Court examined whether the Registrar’s refusal was justified in view of the extraordinary circumstances and whether the delay in filing the application could be condoned. Finding that the appellant was not responsible for the non‑issuance of the decree, the Court condoned the delay, quashed the Registrar’s order, and restored the First Appeal. The Court imposed a condition that all office objections must be removed within four weeks, failing which the order would lose effect.

Issues considered

Whether the Registrar’s order refusing registration of the First Appeal is valid when the decree was not issued due to the Covid‑19 pandemic.
Whether the appellant can be held liable for not depositing a decree that the Trial Court failed to prepare.
Whether the delay in filing the application for registration can be condoned under the circumstances.

Subjects

registration of appeal
office objections
decree deposit
Covid-19 pandemic
condonation of delay
High Court procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42221



                                                      1
                                                                   916 CA 14087 OF 2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14087 OF 2023
                                              IN RC/1530/2019

                                  SITARAM SAMBHAJI DAPPADWAD
                                               VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR,
                                           LATUR AND ORS
                                                   ...
                     Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, Advocate for Applicant
                     Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State
                                                   …

                                             CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 11th September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Mr. R. K. Ashtekar, learned Advocate for the applicant

                     submits that the registration of the First Appeal was refused

                     on account of failure of the appellant to remove office

                     objections within the stipulated time. He submits that the

                     impugned order was passed by the learned Registrar

                     (Judicial) of this Court for the reason that the appellant could

                     not deposit decree prepared by the Trial Court. He would

                     submit that in fact during the period of Covid-19 pandemic,

                     the decree was not issued by the Trial Court and the appellant

                     was not responsible for the same.
                                 2
                                               916 CA 14087 OF 2023

2.       For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed. The delay caused in filing the application stands

condoned.

3.       The order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned

Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is hereby quashed and set

aside.

4.       The First Appeal is restored to its original position,

provided that the appellant shall remove all office objections

within a period of four weeks from today.

5.       It is made clear that if the office objections are not

removed within the stipulated period, this order shall

automatically lose its effect.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…