Bombay High Court
BALU VISHNU GORE SINCE DECEASEDversusSUMAN RAMCHANDRA GAVATE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court refused to condone the delay and dismissed both the interim application and the second appeal.
Summary
The applicants filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 2,118‑day delay in filing an appeal against a decree dated 21 June 2019. They argued that the death of Appellant No.1 in September 2019, the Covid‑19 pandemic, and the severe knee ailment of Appellant No.3's wife justified the delay. The court observed that the decree was passed nine months before the pandemic began and that the appeal could have been filed as early as March 2020, well before restrictions were imposed. It further noted that the pandemic restrictions were lifted in February 2022, yet the appeal remained unfiled for more than three additional years, and no medical evidence was produced. Consequently, the court found no sufficient justification for the inordinate delay, dismissed the interim application, dismissed the second appeal, and disposed of all pending interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the court should condone a delay of over five years in filing an appeal on the grounds of death, pandemic restrictions, and a spouse's medical condition.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- interim application
- Covid-19
- procedural law
- High Court
Judgment
Sonali Mane 906-IA-11107-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11107 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11109 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11108 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 23641 OF 2025
Balu Vishnu Gore (Decd.) Thr. Lrs.
Mrs. Sharda Balu Gore & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
Suman Ramchandra Gavate & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar for the Applicants.
Mr. Abhijeet V. Jangale for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 8 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of delay
of 2118 days in filing the Appeal.
2) I have heard Mr. Shivarkar, the learned counsel appearing for
the Applicants and Mr. Jangale, the learned counsel appearing for
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
___Page No.1 of 3___
2026.10.09
15:12:24
+0530
8 October, 2026
Sonali Mane 906-IA-11107-2025.docx
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have considered the submissions
canvassed by them.
3) The decree of the First Appellate Court is passed on 21 June
2019. According to the Appellants, Appellant No.1 expired on
8 September 2019. It is contended that thereafter, due to Covid-19
pandemic, the Appeal could not be filed. So far as the period after
lifting of pandemic restriction is concerned, it is sought to be
contended that wife of Appellant No.3 was suffering from knee
aliments and was bedridden and therefore the delay in filing the Appeal
has occurred.
4) I find it difficult to accept the above justification for
condonation of delay of over five long years. The decree of the First
Appellate Court was passed on 21 June 2019 i.e. about nine months
before the advent of Covid-19 pandemic. Even if the death of Appellant
No.1 on 8 September 2019 is taken into consideration, there is no
proper justification as to why the Appeal was not lodged till 15 March
2020, when Covid-19 restrictions came into play. All the Covid-19
restrictions were removed on 28 February 2022. However, for next more
than three long years the Appellants remained negligent and did not
file the Appeal. The pretext of wife of Appellant No.3 suffering from
knee aliments cannot be accepted for condoning delay of more than
three years after lifting of Covid-19 restrictions. More importantly, no
medical certificate is produced alongwith the application to establish
that knee aliment of wife of Appellant No.3 is to such an extent that
the same rendered filing of the Appeal impossible.
___Page No.2 of 3___
8 October, 2026
Sonali Mane 906-IA-11107-2025.docx
5) In my view, therefore, there is no proper justification for
inordinate delay of 2118 days. In that view of the matter, Interim
Application is dismissed, and consequently the Second Appeal is also
dismissed.
6) In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, all pending Interim
Applications are disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.3 of 3___
8 October, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.