Bombay High Court
HASHMI SAYED MUKHTAR SYED ALIMODDINversusAKHTARBEGUM ABDUL GAFOOR MOMIN DIED THR LRS ABDUL GAFUR MOMIN L.RS. BALIK ABDUL AND ORS
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that procedural delays not caused deliberately may be condoned in the interest of justice, allowing the applications, setting aside abatement, and restoring the appeal.
Summary
The Bombay High Court dealt with several procedural applications arising from Second Appeal No. 104 of 1988. An application to fix the final hearing date of the appeal was allowed, scheduling it for 11 September 2026. The Court condoned an 810‑day delay in filing an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record, set aside the abatement, and granted permission to amend the pleadings. It also condoned a 965‑day delay in filing an application seeking restoration of a related second appeal (ST) No. 16370 of 2021, ordering the appeal to be restored to its original stage subject to removal of office objections. Notices were re‑issued to certain respondents, and all applications were disposed of after granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether an 810‑day delay in filing an application to bring legal representatives of a deceased respondent can be condoned.
- Whether the abatement of the proceeding should be set aside.
- Whether permission should be granted to bring the deceased respondent's legal representatives on record.
- Whether a 965‑day delay in filing an application for restoration of a second appeal can be condoned.
- Whether the second appeal (ST) No. 16370 of 2021 should be restored to its original stage.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil procedure
- abate
- restoration of appeal
- interest of justice
- notice issuance
Judgment
925 SA NO. 104 OF 1988.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 SECOND APPEAL NO. 104 OF 1988
Syed Abdul Haq @ Alimoddin (l.rs.) Syed Mukhtar.
VERSUS
Syed Arifulla Syed Ahemadulla Hashmi And Others.
...
Mr. Rajeev B Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. V. M. Maney, Advocate for Applicant in CA/13083/2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10372 OF 2024 IN SA/37/2022WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 700 OF 2022 IN SA/37/2022WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4468 OF 2025 IN CA/13083/2024WITH
SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2022WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13083 OF 2024 IN SAST/16370/2021
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28.08.2026
PER COURT :-
SECOND APPEAL NO. 104 OF 1988
1. As per the office endorsement, learned Advocate Mr. P.
R. Deshmukh appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 6 is no more.
2. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondent Nos.3
and 6, returnable on 11.09.2026.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10372 OF 2024 IN SA/37/2022
1. This is an application for fixing the appeal for final
hearing.
2. Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein,
1 of 5
(( 2 )) 925 SA NO. 104 OF 1988
the application is allowed and disposed of.
3. Fix Second Appeal No.37 of 2022 for final hearing on
11.09.2026 at 10:30 a.m.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4468 OF 2025
1. Heard learned Advocates for both sides.
2. This is an application for condonation of 810 days delay
caused in filing the Civil Application for bringing the legal
representatives of deceased Respondent No.9 on record as well as for
setting aside abatement and permission to bring the L.Rs. of deceased
Respondent No.9 on record.
3. Learned Advocates for the respondents strongly opposed
the application.
4. Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated
therein, it appears that the delay is not deliberately caused. Hence,
the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
a. The application is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’.
b. The delay of 810 caused in filing the Civil
Application for bringing the legal representatives of
2 of 5
(( 3 )) 925 SA NO. 104 OF 1988
deceased Respondent No.9 on record is condoned.
c. The abatement is set aside.
d. Permission to bring the legal representatives of
of deceased Respondent No.9 on record is granted.
The amendment be carried out within a period of two
weeks from today. If the amendment is not carried
out within the stipulated period, the applicants shall
be liable to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Advocates’
Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co-operative
Society, High Court Premises, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2022
1. Re-issue notice to Respondent No.4, returnable on
11.09.2026.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13083 OF 2024 IN SAST/16370/2021
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 965 days
caused in filing the present Civil Application and for setting aside the
order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial) for
non-removal of office objections and for restoring Second Appeal (ST)
No.16370 of 2021 to its original stage.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant. He submits that,
3 of 5
(( 4 )) 925 SA NO. 104 OF 1988
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the office objections could not be
noted. Consequently, a conditional order came to be passed for non-
removal of the office objections, and registration of the Second
Appeal was refused. He further submits that the delay caused in
filing the present application is not deliberate and prays that Second
Appeal (St.) No.16370 of 2021 be restored to its original stage.
3. 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. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
a. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
b. The delay of 965 days caused in filing the Civil Application
for restoration of Second Appeal (St.) No.16370 of 2021 to
its original stage is condoned.
c. Second Appeal (ST) No.16370 of 2021 is restored to its
original position, subject to removal of the office objections
on or before 11.09.2026.
d. The Civil Application is disposed of.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
4 of 5
(( 5 )) 925 SA NO. 104 OF 1988
HRJadhav
5 of 5
Checking your session…