Bombay High Court
VISHWAS BANDU PATILversusPRADEEP SHIVAJI LAD AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court condoned the delay on the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period if the appeal succeeds.
Summary
The applicant, Vishwas Bandu Patil, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of 5 years and 183 days in filing an appeal for enhancement of compensation against a judgment dated 06‑02‑2015. He offered to forego any interest for the delayed period and relied on Supreme Court judgments that permit condonation when the claimant is willing to give up interest. The insurance company (Respondent No.2) opposed the condonation, arguing that the delay was inordinate and citing Karnataka High Court decisions that adopt a stricter approach. The Court examined the submissions, found no evidence of an oblique motive, and held that the applicant’s willingness to relinquish interest satisfied the criteria for condonation. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the applicant was barred from claiming interest if the appeal succeeds.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of more than five years in filing an appeal can be condoned under civil procedure law.
- Whether the applicant’s willingness to forego interest is sufficient ground for condonation of such delay.
- Whether Supreme Court precedents favoring condonation outweigh the Karnataka High Court’s stricter stance.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- interest waiver
- insurance
- compensation enhancement
- civil procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
- Karnataka High Court precedent
Judgment
20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10570 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 95303 OF 2020
Vishwas Bandu Patil ...Applicant
Versus
Pradeep Shivaji Lad And Anr. ...Respondents
…..
Adv. Aditya Ghadge h/f Adv. Akshay Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant.
Adv. Sachin Phatak (through V. C.) a/w Adv. Sayali Shelake, Advocate
for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
…..
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
By this application, the applicant seeks to condone delay of 5
years and 183 days in preferring appeal for enhancement of the
compensation, challenging judgment and award dated 06.02.2015.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is sought to be
condoned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
his client is ready to forego interest for the delayed period. The delay is
stated to be unintentional. The reliance is placed on the judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court for condonation of delay in case the claimant is
ZIP 1 of 4
20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc
ready to forego the interest. Those judgments are Pahlad & Anr. Versus
Jagatpal and Ors.1 and Thakor Tinuji @ Tinaji Kamshiji Versus Nanalal
M. Thakker & Anr. (Arising out of Special Leave Petition © No. 7473 of
2025.)
3. The application is contested by the respondent No.2 - Insurance
company. The learned counsel submits that the delay is inordinate and
the reasons are scanty. It being first appeal, the over-liberal approach is
deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He places reliance on
judgment passed by learned single judge of Karnataka High Court in
case of Cheluvaraju Versus Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.2, which inter alia relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in cases of Esha Bhattacharjee Versus Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3
and Basawaraj Versus Land Acquisition Officer4.
4. The averments of the application have gone uncontroverted. I
have gone through the contents of the application. There is nothing on
the record to suggest any oblique motive on the part of the applicant to
prefer appeal belatedly.
5. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is well-founded
that his client is ready to give up interest for the delayed period. Hence,
it is desirable to condone the delay. The judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court cited by the applicant corroborates the submissions.
1 2026 ACJ 751.
2 2016 ACJ 2039.
3 (2013) 12 SCC 649.
4 (2013) 14 SCC 81.
ZIP 2 of 4
20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc
6. I have gone through the judgment rendered by the learned single
judge of Karnataka High Court, which inter alia refers to couple of
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The view taken by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the applicant is of the
latter point of time. It has reiterated the consistent view being taken. I
propose to follow those principles than to follow the view taken by the
learned single judge of Karnataka High Court.
7. It needs mention that the respondent No.1 is the contesting party
who has not caused appearance despite valid service. The respondent
No.2 - insurance company is exonerated from the liability. The liability
is imposed upon the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle by the
impugned judgment. In such a situation, though the respondent -
Insurance company contested the application for condonation of delay,
the contesting party has preferred not to appear before this Court.
8. Interim application is allowed and the delay stands condoned on
the condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to interest for 5
years and 183 days in case he succeeds in the appeal.
FIRST APPEAL(ST) NO. 95303 OF 2020
9. Admit.
10. Mr. Sachin Phatak, learned counsel, waives notice for respondent
No.2 – Insurance Company.
ZIP 3 of 4
20-IA-10570-2025 (C).doc
11. Call for record and proceeding.
12. Print is dispensed with.
13. Parties shall be at liberty to file compilation of documents.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]
ZIP 4 of 4
Checking your session…