Bombay High Court

USHA TRIMBAK DESAIversusMADHAV NARAYAN KURHE AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

In the interest of justice, the court condoned both delays, set aside the abatement, allowed the amendment to bring the legal representatives on record, and granted a stay of execution pending the appeal.

Summary

The High Court considered two applications for condonation of delay: one for a 175‑day delay in filing an appeal and another for a 3,332‑day delay in filing an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record and to set aside an abatement. The court found that the first delay was not deliberate and, in the interest of justice, condoned it, allowing the appeal to be registered. For the second application, despite opposition, the court noted the peculiar facts, including the death of the respondent during pendency, and relied on Supreme Court precedent (M.D.A. Chaudhary v. Kartar Chand) to set aside the abatement and permit the amendment to bring the legal representatives on record. Additionally, the court granted a stay on the execution of the trial court’s decree, directing that the appeal be heard expeditiously by 15 September 2026. The orders were issued without any notice to respondents, who waived it, and the parties were directed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 175 days in filing an appeal can be condoned.
Whether a delay of 3,332 days in filing an application to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record and to set aside an abatement can be condoned.
Whether a stay of execution proceedings should be granted pending the hearing of the appeal.

Subjects

condonation of delay
abatement
legal representatives
stay of execution
civil procedure
interest of justice

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40172

(1) 966 ca 11549.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

966 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11549 OF 2024
IN CA/15303/2019
WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15303 OF 2019
IN SAST/38959/2019

USHA TRIMBAK DESAI
VERSUS
MADHAV NARAYAN KURHE AND OTHERS

…..
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kale Mahesh P.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R.S. Patil h/f. Ramesh I. Wakade
…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 01.09.2026

P.C.:-

Civil Application No. 15303 of 2019:

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 175 days caused

in filing the appeal.

2. Perused the application. Heard the learned advocate for

applicant.

3. On perusal of the application, it appears that the delay has not

been deliberately caused. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay

deserves to be condoned.
(2) 966 ca 11549.24

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay stands

condoned. The application stands allowed in the interest of justice. Appeal be

registered.

Civil Application No. 11549 of 2024:

5. This is an application for condonation of delay of 3332 days

caused in filing the application for bringing the legal representatives of

respondent no.3/2 on record and for setting aside the abatement

6. Perused the application. Heard the learned advocates for both the

sides

7. The learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the

application and submitted that delay has not been properly explained and

therefore application deserves to be rejected.

8. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that respondent

no.3/2 died during the pendency of the regular civil appeal in which

respondent was appellant, however, he had not taken care to bring the legal

representatives of respondent no.3/2 on record.

9. Considering the reasons stated in the application and the peculiar

set of facts of the case and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
(3) 966 ca 11549.24

Court in the case of M.D.A. Chaudhary v. Kartar Chand and Ors.;

MANU/SC/0877/2025, to decide the lis finally on merit the application

deserves to be allowed. In the interest of justice, the application is allowed.

Abatement is set aside and permission for bringing the legal representatives of

respondent no.3/2 on record is granted. Amendment be carried out within

two weeks.

Appeal:

10. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned advocate Mr. R.S. Patil

h/f. Mr. Wakade for the respondents waives notice.

11. Learned advocate for the respondents Mr. R.S. Patil h/f. Mr.

Wakade submits that in the execution proceedings the partition is effected. He

orally submits to stay the execution proceedings pending before the Revenue

Authorities.

12. Considering peculiar set of facts of the case and after hearing the

learned advocate for the appellant, it would be proper to grant stay to the

execution of impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court on a condition

to hear and decide this appeal as expeditiously as possibly and in any case on

or before 15.09.2026.
(4) 966 ca 11549.24

13. Admission hearing of the appeal is expedited.

14. Legal representatives of respondent nos.1, 3 and 3/5 are already

on record, therefore, it is not necessary to bring the legal representatives of

respondent nos.1, 3 and 3/5 on record. The appellant is permitted to bracket

said names only while carrying out the amendment. The same may be carried

out within two weeks.

15. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

16. Place the appeal for hearing on 15.09.2026.

[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]

mubashir

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…