Bombay High Court
Mohammad Abdul Shaikh Died Thr Lrs Adam Mohammad Shaikh and orsversusDagdu Nagnath Kasar
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court condoned the 47‑day delay in filing the second appeal and granted a stay of execution of the judgment to the extent of possession of the suit premises.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 47‑day delay in filing their second appeal and, in a separate application, a stay of execution of a judgment dated 12‑09‑2022. The court examined the reasons for the delay and found them neither deliberate nor intentional, deeming condonation appropriate in the interest of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay. In the stay application, the court noted ongoing execution proceedings and the pending warrant application, and therefore ordered a stay of execution concerning possession of the suit premises until the respondent appears. Notices were issued to the respondent in both matters, with return dates fixed. The orders were pronounced by Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 47 days in filing a second appeal can be condoned.
- Whether a stay of execution of the judgment and decree should be granted pending further hearing.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- second appeal
- stay of execution
- civil procedure
- interest of justice
Judgment
1003 CA NO. 9621 OF 2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9621 OF 2025
IN SAST/26742/2025
Mohammad Abdul Shaikh Died Thr Lrs Adam Mohammad Shaikh
And Ors
VERSUS
Dagdu Nagnath Kasara
...
Mr. Urgunde Suhas Parvatappa, Advocate for Applicants
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9620 OF 2025 IN SAST/26742/2025
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28.08.2026
PER COURT :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9620 OF 2025 IN SAST/26742/2025
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellants.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 47
days caused in filing the Second Appeal.
3. Perused the application. For the reasons stated
therein, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of
justice as the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence
the following order:
::ORDER::
a. Civil Application is allowed.
b. The delay of 47 days caused in filing the Second Appeal
is condoned.
1 of 2
(( 2 )) 1003 CA NO. 9621 OF 2025
SECOND APPEAL
1. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 24.09.2026.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9621 OF 2025 IN SAST/26742/2025
1. This application is filed seeking stay to the execution of
the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2022 passed by the
learned District Judge-2, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.166
of 2015.
2. Learned Advocate for the Applicants pointed out the daily
status of the execution proceedings in Regular Darkhast No.26 of
2023, wherein an application has been moved for issuance of
warrant, and the matter is posted for hearing on 29.08.2026 before
the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Osmanabad/Dharashiv.
3. In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondent as to
why stay shall not be granted. Notice be made returnable on
24.09.2026. In the meantime, there shall be stay to the execution of
the impugned Judgment and Decree to the extent of taking possession
of the suit premises, till the appearance of the Respondent and filing
of his say.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
2 of 2
Checking your session…