Bombay High Court

DATTU SANTU BUDHA LRS SUDAMversusAMMENABI MIR HUSSAIN KHAN LRS AMEENABI

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court dismissed Application 3382 as infructuous, confirmed condonation of delay in Application 4739, allowed Applications 8856 and 8855 with condonation and set aside any abetment, and ordered the 1980 appeal to be heard on priority.

Summary

The Bombay High Court dealt with several pending civil applications arising from a second appeal filed in 1980. Application No. 3382 of 2025 was held infructuous after the applicant deposited the required costs of Rs.15,000 and was accordingly dismissed. Application No. 4739 of 2025, filed for condonation of delay in filing Application No. 12154 of 2024, was disposed after the court recognized that the delay of 2,642 days had already been condoned. Applications No. 8856 and 8855 of 2015, each seeking condonation of delay and the inclusion of legal representatives, were allowed in the interest of justice, with orders to amend within a week and any alleged abetment set aside. The court also directed that the long‑standing appeal from 1980 be heard on a priority basis and adjourned the matter to 2 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether Application No. 3382 of 2025 should be dismissed as infructuous after cost deposit.
Whether delay in filing Application No. 4739 of 2025 (and related Application No. 12154 of 2024) can be condoned.
Whether Applications No. 8856 and 8855 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay and inclusion of legal representatives should be allowed.
Whether any alleged abetment in the above applications should be set aside.
Whether the 1980 second appeal should be heard on a priority basis.

Subjects

civil procedure
condonation of delay
abatement
application dismissed
cost deposit
priority hearing
second appeal

Judgment

                                                               sa406.80
                                  -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

              916 SECOND APPEAL NO. 406 OF 1980

                   Dattu Santu Budha, And Ors.
                              VERSUS
              Ammenabai,died Per L.rs.mahmoodabi.
                                 ...
Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Preeti R. Wankhade
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Faij Khan Jarif Khan
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Wagh
                                …..
                                WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8574 OF 2022 WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8855 OF 2015 WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8856 OF 2015 WITH
          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4739 OF 2025 WITH
              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3382 OF 2025
                                 …..

                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                     DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026

PER COURT :-


1.        In civil application No. 3382 of 2025, learned advocate for

the applicant submits that the costs amount of Rs.15,000/- is

deposited. In view of the same, the civil application No.3382 of 2025

has become infructuous. The said application is therefore, disposed

of as infructuous.



2.        In so far as civil application No. 4739 of 2025 is concerned,

the same was filed for condonation of delay caused in filing civil

application No.12154 of 2024 for bringing the legal representatives of
                                                                sa406.80
                                  -2-

respondent Nos.1/2-g on record and for setting aside the abetment.

The civil application No. 12154 of 2024 was allowed with condonation

of delay.     However, while disposing of the said application,

inadvertently the order of disposal of civil application No. 4739 of

2025 was not passed. Upon hearing both sides, this Court found that

by mistake that order was not passed in which delay of 2642 days

already condoned. In view of above, civil application No. 4739 of

2025 is disposed of.



3.        In so far as civil application No. 8856 of 2015 is concerned,

the same is filed for condonation of delay and bringing the legal

representatives of respondent No.2 on record.             Perused the

application. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned

advocate for the respondents. Learned advocate for the respondents

strongly opposed the application. Considering the reasons sated in

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

of justice, as prayed for.    The application therefore, is allowed.

Amendment to be carried out within a week from today. Abetment, if

any, is set aside.



4.        In so far as the civil application No. 8855 of 2015 is

concerned, the same is filed for condonation of delay and bringing

the legal representatives of appellant Nos.1 and 2 on record.
                                                              sa406.80
                                  -3-

Perused the application. Heard learned advocate for the applicants

and learned advocate for the respondents. Learned advocate for the

respondents strongly opposed the application. Considering the

reasons stated in the application, the application deserves to be

allowed, in the interest of justice, as prayed for.   The application

therefore, is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within a week

from today. Abetment, if any, is set aside.



5.       Learned advocate for the appellants and respondents are

made aware that the appeal is of the year 1980 and it has to be

heard and decided on priority basis.      Learned advocates for the

parties are therefore, directed to remain present and argue the matter

on the next date.



6.       Stand over to 02.09.2026 at 2.30 p.m.



                                   (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…