Bombay High Court

PACHULAL MAHEBOOB PATHANversusKHAJABEGUM W/O HANNAN PATEL

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court condoned the delay, allowed the application, and restored the second appeal to its original position.

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 193‑day delay in restoring Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 after the Registrar refused registration due to unresolved office objections. The applicant had complied with all objections except one concerning the omission of Respondent No.2’s name in a later decree, which was beyond his control. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing no sufficient cause. The court found the delay was not deliberate, noted the need to correct the party’s name in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014, and therefore allowed the application, condoned the delay, restored the appeal to its original stage, and directed the registry to forward the judgment for correction. The order was pronounced by Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 193 days in filing an application for restoration of a second appeal can be condoned.
Whether the application for restoration of Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 should be allowed despite the unresolved office objection.
Whether the registry should be directed to forward the judgment and decree of R.C.A. No.67 of 2014 for correction of the party’s name.

Subjects

condonation of delay
restoration of appeal
office objections
correction of parties
civil procedure

Judgment

                                              962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
           962 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2391 OF 2026
                     IN SAST/28225/2024

                   Pachulal Maheboob Pathan
                             VERSUS
                 Khajabegum W/o Hannan Patel
                                ...
Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Applicant
Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. Adesh R. Ban, Advocate for
Respondent No.7 (caveator)
                               ….

                   CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                      DATE : 02.09.2026
PER COURT :-

1.        This is an application for condonation of delay of 193

days caused in filing the present Civil Application and for setting

aside the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Registrar

(Judicial) for non-removal of office objections and for restoring

Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 to its original stage.


2.        Heard Mr. G. R. Syed, learned Advocate for the

Applicants. He submits that, due to non-removal of the office

objections, a conditional order came to be passed by the learned

Registrar (Judicial) on 26.02.2025 and registration of the Second

Appeal was refused. He submits that the Applicants had earlier

filed Civil Application No.8203 of 2025 seeking recall of the order


                                                                 1 of 3
                                   (( 2 ))      962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026


dated 26.02.2025. By order dated 07.08.2025, the Applicants were

permitted to remove the office objections within two weeks, failing

which the appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to

the Court. He submits that the Applicants complied with all the office

objections except Objection No.3, which reads as under:

“3. Name of Respondent No.2 is shown in the R.C.S. judgment but is

not made a party in the R.C.A. judgment.”

          He submits that the said objection is beyond the control of

the Applicants and, therefore, the conditional order has taken effect.

He further submits that the delay caused in filing the present

application is neither deliberate nor intentional. He, therefore, prays

that Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 be restored to its original

stage.


3.        Learned Advocate for Respondent No.7 strongly opposes

the application and submits that there is no sufficient reasons to

condone the delay. She lastly prays to reject the Application.


4.        Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated

therein, it appears that the delay has not been caused deliberately.

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

justice. It is also pointed out that Respondent No.2–Habibunnisa W/o


                                                                    2 of 3
                                       (( 3 ))    962 CA NO. 2391 OF 2026


A. Hannan Patel is shown as a party in the judgment and decree

passed in R.C.S. No.3 of 2011, however, her name has not been

shown as a party in the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.67

of 2014. Therefore, it would be proper to direct the Registry to

forward the judgment and decree to the concerned Court for carrying

out the necessary correction by adding Respondent No.2–Habibunnisa

W/o A. Hannan Patel as a respondent party in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014.

Hence, the following order:

                                ::ORDER::

           a.      The application is allowed.
           b.      The delay of 193 days caused in filing the Civil
           Application for restoration of Second Appeal (ST)
           No.28225 of 2024 to its original position is condoned.
           c.      Second Appeal (ST) No.28225 of 2024 is restored
           to its original position.
           d.      The Registry shall forward the judgment and decree
           passed in R.C.A. No.67 of 2014 to the concerned Court for
           carrying out the necessary correction by adding Respondent
           No.2–Habibunnisa W/o A. Hannan Patel as a respondent
           party therein.



                                         [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                      3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…