Bombay High Court
CHIMAN FAKIR PATEL, S/O. FAKIR KANJI PATEL AND ORS.versusDIVARI BANGUIO, W/O BANGUIO FAKIR ALIAS BHAGUBHAI FAKIR BHAI PATEL AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The delay was not intentional and was therefore condoned.
Summary
The applicants filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 40‑day delay in filing a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court. The respondents did not appear despite being served. The applicants explained that the delay was due to the sudden illness of applicant No.1 and the time taken to amend the application to reflect the correct period of delay. The court examined whether the delay was intentional and found no evidence of intentionality. Consequently, the court held that the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice and allowed the interim application, disposing of it.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 40 days in filing a Civil Revision Application can be condoned under procedural law.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil revision
- interim application
- procedural law
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
48-ia14021-23.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14021 OF 2023
IDHOL
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.14724 OF 2023
Digitally signed
by VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL Chiman Fakir Patel & Ors. ...Applicants
Date: V/s.
2026.08.17 Divari Banguio & Ors. ...Respondents
20:22:36 +0530
Mr.Sandeep R. Waghmare for the Applicants.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :-
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days
in filing the Civil Revision Application.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicants. Nobody appears on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 although served.
3. It has to be noted that in response to the notice issued by
this Court on this application by an order dated 7th August, 2023,
respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been served, in view of the office
endorsement dated 6th August, 2026.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that there is delay
of 40 days in filing the Civil Revision Application. He submits that
while filing this application, the applicants have correctly mentioned
the extent of delay as 40 days, however after the delay was calculated
1/2
48-ia14021-23.doc
by the Registry, it was recorded that there is delay of only 8 days and
accordingly he has carried out an amendment in the application to
mention that there is delay of only 8 days. However, today he fairly
submits that the delay is of 40 days.
5. He submits that the delay occurred on account of the
reasons mentioned in paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the application in
which it is stated that the delay occurred on account of sudden illness
of applicant no.1 and therefore some time was consumed in the
process of incorporating necessary changes regarding the reasons for
delay in the civil revision application. He submits that the delay is
unintentional and in case it is not condoned, the Civil Revision
Application could not be taken up on merits.
6. The contentions canvassed on behalf of the applicants
remain uncontroverted.
7. On consideration of the contents of the application and the
submissions advanced, I do not find that the delay to be intentional
and hence it needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay of 40 days in filing
the Civil Revision Application is condoned.
8. The Interim Application is allowed and disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
2/2
Checking your session…