Bombay High Court

SHRI. PRAKASH VASUDEV PATKARversusBHARAT DASHRATH PEDNEKAR (DECD.THR.LRS) SHRI. RAVINDRA BHARAT PEDNEKAR AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed
Bench: VRUSHALI V JOSHI

Holding

The court condoned the 71‑day delay, ordered registration of the appeal, and granted liberty to seek an adjournment for the day, listing the matter for final disposal.

Summary

The applicant, Prakash Vasudev Patkar, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 71‑day delay in filing a second appeal. He claimed ignorance of the filing procedure and difficulty in engaging counsel before the High Court. The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was aware of the proceedings and had no sufficient cause. The court found that the applicant’s difficulty in securing representation constituted sufficient cause and therefore condoned the delay, directing registration of the appeal. In a separate interim application, the applicant’s counsel, appearing via video conference, faced technical issues and sought a stay of execution of a decree of possession; the court granted liberty to move for an adjournment for the day and listed the matter for final disposal on 4 March 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the 71‑day delay in filing the second appeal can be condoned under the limitation provisions.
Whether the applicant’s reasons for delay constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
Whether an interim stay of execution of the decree of possession should be granted pending adjournment.

Subjects

condonation of delay
limitation period
second appeal
stay of execution
adjournment
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                     904-IA-18969-2022.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18969 OF 2022
                                 WITH
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18962 OF 2022
                                   IN
                  SECOND APPEAL NO.24405 OF 2022
Shri. Prakash Vasudev Patkar             …..Applicant
      Vs.
Bharat Dashrath Pednekar
(Decd.Thr.Lrs) Shri. Ravindra
Bharat Pednekar And Ors                  …..Respondents

Mr. Abhijit Tambe, for the Applicant (through vc).
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, for the Respondents.

                              CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
                                DATED : 27th FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.:-
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18969 OF 2022

1.       The Applicant has preferred the present Application seeking

condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the Appeal.


2.       Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the

Applicant is a resident of Malvan Taluka and was not conversant with

the procedure for filing a Second Appeal before this Court. It is

submitted that he was not in contact with any Advocate practicing

Suresh                                                                  1/3
                                                          904-IA-18969-2022.doc

before the High Court at the relevant time, and therefore, the Appeal

could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation, resulting

in delay.


3.       Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has opposed the

Application, contending that no sufficient cause has been shown for

condonation of delay. It is submitted that the Applicant was aware of

the legal proceedings, as he had contested the Civil Suit as well as

the First Appeal, and therefore, the reasons assigned are not

satisfactory. Hence, it is prayed that the Application be rejected.


4.       Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the Application, it appears that the Applicant had initially

contacted his Advocate, who expressed inability to appear before the

High Court. Thereafter, time was consumed in contacting and

engaging an Advocate practicing before this Court. The reasons

assigned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, constitute

sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 71

days in filing the Appeal is condoned.


5.       The Office is directed to register the Appeal.



Suresh                                                                       2/3
                                                      904-IA-18969-2022.doc

6.       Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 5th March 2026.


7.       Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, waives notice on behalf of Respondents.


               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18962 OF 2022


8.       Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant appeared through

video conferencing. However, due to connectivity issues and

disturbance in the audio, the submissions of the learned counsel

could not be clearly heard.

9.       Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks interim relief for stay

of execution of the decree of possession.

10.      Since the matter is listed today, liberty is granted to the

Appellant to move an application for adjournment for today only.


11.      list the matter on 4th March, 2026 for final disposal at the

stage of admission.




                                  (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)




Suresh                                                                   3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…