Bombay High Court

KEVALBAI JAGANNATH PAWAR AND ORSversusSHANKAR RAGHO BACHHAV SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the condonation of a 610‑day delay is not permitted.

Summary

The appellants, who were defendants in a civil suit, faced an ex‑parte decree and a consequent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, who held a registered sale deed. After appearing in execution proceedings on 13 July 2013, the appellants filed an appeal against the decree on 5 February 2015, delayed by 610 days, and sought condonation of this delay. The district judge rejected the condonation application, finding no justifiable reason, particularly dismissing the claim of a cancer ailment as the appellant had recovered in 2011. The appellants challenged this rejection in a second appeal, arguing that the delay should be condoned. The High Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantive cause for the inordinate delay, that no written statement had been filed in the original suit, and that permitting the appeal would serve no practical purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal and ordered the disposal of all related civil and interim applications.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 610 days in filing an appeal against an ex‑parte decree can be condoned under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the CPC.
Whether the appellant’s claim of illness constitutes a justifiable reason for such delay.
Whether the order rejecting the condonation application involves any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 32(5)

Subjects

condonation of delay
ex‑parte decree
civil appeal
CPC
execution proceedings
injunction
sale deed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:36129
             k                            1/4                     23 sa 719.17 as.doc




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017

             Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors.                         ....Appellants
                   V/S
             Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr.                            ....Respondents

                                          WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1420 OF 2017
                                           IN
                              SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017

             Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors.                         ....Applicants
                   V/S
             Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr.                            ....Respondents

                                        WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.29674 OF 2016
                                          IN
                             SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017

             Jagannath Dhodha Pawar                                  ....Applicant
                  V/S
             Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr.                            ....Respondents

                                         WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2025
                                          IN
                              SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017

             Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors.                         ....Applicants
                   V/S
             Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr.                            ....Respondents
                                           _________

             Mr. Vikas B. Mourya i/b Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv for the
             Appellants/Applicants.

             katkam                             Page No. 1 of 4
k                                2/4                     23 sa 719.17 as.doc




Mr. Pratik Sabrad i/b Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad with Ms. Neha Parte for
Respondents.
                             __________
                      CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                      DATE : 1 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:

1.       The Second Appeal challenges order dated 28 June 2016 passed by
the District Judge, Malegaon, rejecting Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.14
of 2015 filed for the purpose of condonation of delay of 610 days in filing
the Appeal against ex-parte decree dated 12 June 2013.


2.       I have heard Mr. Mourya, the learned counsel appearing for
Appellants and Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1.


3.       Appellants are Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.206 of 2012
filed by the Plaintiff for seeking declaration of ownership and injunction
against the Defendants. Despite being duly served Defendants failed to
appear in the Suit. The Suit proceeded ex-parte. The Trial Court went
through registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff in
pursuance of execution of a decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.95 of
2006. After being satisfied that Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property
the Trial Court also issued consequential injunction in favour of the
Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from causing any obstruction to
Plaintiff using the suit land.


4.       It appears that Defendants acquired knowledge of the execution
proceedings and appeared therein on 13 July 2013 and filed Application

katkam                                 Page No. 2 of 4
k                              3/4                     23 sa 719.17 as.doc




under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
Code). Thus, Defendants participated in the execution proceedings and
attempted to obstruct execution of the decree. However, they did not
take contemporaneous steps for challenging the decree of the Trial Court
by filing the Appeal. The Appeal was filed on 5 February 2015 after delay
of 610 days. More importantly Defendants did not plead any justifiable
reasons for condonation of such inordinate delay. The plea of Defendant
No.1 suffering from cancer is found to be inconsequential since it has
come in evidence that she had recovered in the year 2011 itself. The
Appellate Court has rightly held that no justifiable cause is pleaded or
demonstrated by the Defendants for condonation of delay. Even
otherwise, no practical purpose would be served in permitting the
Appellants to prosecute the Appeal on merits in view of the fact that
there is no Written Statement filed by them in the Suit and Plaintiff is
armed with a registered Sale Deed executed in his name. In any case, if
the Appellants were serious enough in challenging the decree of the
Trial Court, they ought to have contemporaneously filed the Appeal after
appearing in execution proceedings on 13 July 2013. If the ailment and
other reason did not come in the way of Defendants in appearing and
defending the execution proceedings, it is incomprehensible as to how
the said difficulties can selectively come in the way of filing of Appeal.
The Application for condonation of delay is rightly rejected by the
Appellate Court. No substantial question of law is involved and there is
no interference warranted in the order passed by the learned District
Judge. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.



katkam                               Page No. 3 of 4
                         k                              4/4                          23 sa 719.17 as.doc




                         5.       In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would
                         survive in the Civil Applications and Interim Application and the same
                         are accordingly disposed of.


                                                                                (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                Page No. 4 of 4
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/09/2026 11:48:36

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…