Bombay High Court

BOMBAY MACHINERY AND HARDWARE MART THRO. ITS PARTNERS AND OTHERSversusGANESH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LTD. THRO. MANAGING DIRECTOR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay for a second appeal, but the court noted that the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period, rendering the condonation request unnecessary and disposing of the application. The court then addressed a substantive legal question concerning whether the appellate court erred in evaluating the plaintiff's evidence, given that the defendant had not specifically denied the amount claimed while acknowledging it in Exhibit 76. The matter was adjourned for further notice to the respondent, with proceedings to continue on 19 November 2026. No final decision on the substantive issue was rendered in this order. The order primarily dealt with procedural compliance regarding limitation and set the stage for further hearing on the evidentiary question.

Issues considered

Whether the learned appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence of the plaintiffs when there was no specific denial of the amount by the defendant along with the acknowledgment at Exhibit 76?

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
second appeal
evidence appraisal
appellate court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46133

ca6385.22
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

954 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6385 OF 2022
IN/WITH
SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 1498 OF 2021

Bombay Machinery And Hardware Mart Thro. Its Partners And
Others
VERSUS
Ganesh Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. Thro. Managing Director
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan A. Bajaj with Mr. Anil S.
Bajaj
…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. This civil application is filed for condonation of delay. The

office endorsement shows that the second appeal is filed within

limitation. The application therefore is disposed of.

2. So far as the second appeal is concerned, heard the learned

advocate for the appellants. Perused the impugned judgment of the

trial court. The following substantial question of law is formed:-

Whether the learned appellate court erred in appreciating the
evidence of the plaintiffs when there was no specific denial of
the amount by the defendant along with the acknowledgment
at Exhibit 76?
ca6385.22
-2-

3. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 19.11.2026. Call

for record and proceedings.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…