Bombay High Court
SURESH MAHADU CHAUDHARIversusRAVINDRA MAHADU CHAUDHARI AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- Y G KHOBRAGADE
Holding
Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the applicant's explanation for approaching counsel to obtain certified copies and draft the appeal was bona fide and substantial, and litigants should not be denied substantial justice on technical grounds.
Summary
The applicant Suresh Mahadu Chaudhari filed Civil Application No. 6298 of 2025 seeking condonation of 92 days' delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2024 in Special Civil Suit No. 92/2014 passed by the Jt. C.J.S.D., Dhule. The applicant explained that after the judgment he requested his counsel to obtain certified copies and draft the appeal, which caused the delay. Non-applicant no. 3 and others opposed the application, contending that the delay was not properly explained and that no bona fide or substantial reasons were assigned. The Court observed that a litigant should not suffer denial of substantial justice merely on technical grounds, including delay. It found the applicant's reasons bona fide and substantial, allowed the application, condoned the 92 days' delay, and directed the office to register the first appeal. In First Appeal Stamp No. 15408/2025, the appellant/original defendant no. 3 challenges the same judgment and decree whereby the suit of respondent no. 1/original complainant was dismissed. The Court issued notice to the respondents returnable on 13.02.2026, with counsel waiving notice for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 3, and 7.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2024 deserves to be condoned?
- Whether the reasons assigned for the delay are bona fide and substantial?
- Whether the applicant should be denied substantial justice on the technical ground of delay?
Subjects
- Condonation of delay
- Limitation
- Civil Application
- First Appeal
- Substantial justice
- Sufficient cause
- Special Civil Suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:2230-DB
(1) 911 ca 6298.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6298 OF 2025
IN FAST/15408/2025
SURESH MAHADU CHAUDHARI
VERSUS
RAVINDRA MAHADU CHAUDHARI AND ORS
…..
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bajaj Anil S.
AGP for Respondents: Mr.
Advocate for R/1, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Choudhari Abhijit
Advocate for R/3 : Mr. A.V. Hon
Advocate for R/7 : Mr. Y.B. Bolkar
…..
CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
DATE : 17.01.2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard advocate Mr. Bajaj the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, Mr. Choudhari the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant
nos.1, 4, 5 and 6, Mr. Hon the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant
no.3 and Mr. Bolkar the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.7.
2. By the present application, the applicant prays for condonation of
delay of 92 days caused while lodging the present appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 17.10.2024 passed in Special Civil Suit
No.92/2014 by the learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Dhule. The learned counsel
appearing for the applicant submits that after the impugned judgment and
(2) 911 ca 6298.25
decree was passed, the present applicant had requested his counsel to obtain
the certified copy of judgment and decree and other relevant documents and
some time was taken by the counsel to draft the appeal with the application.
Therefore, the delay has been caused.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.3 has
filed reply and strongly resisted the application. The learned counsel
appearing for the non-applicant no.3 canvassed that the delay has not been
properly explained. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant
nos.1,4, 5 and 6 submits that no bona fide and substantial reasons are
assigned for condonation of delay.
4. It is well settled principal of law that the litigant should not suffer
from receiving substantial justice merely on technical ground including the
ground of delay. In the case in hand, the applicant has given reasons that
after the judgment and decree was passed he approached his counsel for
obtaining the certified copy of necessary documents due to which delay of 90
days has been caused, which appears to be bona fide and substantial.
Therefore, I am inclined to grant the present application and proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER:
i. Civil Application No.6298/2025 is hereby allowed.
(3) 911 ca 6298.25
ii. Delay of 92 days caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
iii. Office to register the first appeal.
First Appeal Stamp No.15408/2025:
5. Heard advocate Mr. Bajaj the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
6. By the present appeal the appellant/original defendant no.3 takes
exception to the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2024 passed in Special
Civil Suit No.92 by the learned CJJD, Dhule, whereby the suit of the
respondent no.1/original complainant was dismissed.
7. Issue notice to the respondents made returnable on 13.02.2026.
Mr. Choudhari waives notice for the respondent nos.1, 4, 5 and 6, Mr. Hon
waives notice for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Bolkar waives notice for the
respondent no.7.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
mubashir
Checking your session…