Bombay High Court
Navanath Vitthal Atakar (Mali)versusBitu Tukaram Atakar (Mali) and others
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed as no sufficient cause is shown.
Summary
The applicant, Navanath Vitthal Atakar, sought condonation of a 387‑day delay in filing a second appeal against a district court order that had itself rejected a six‑year delay in filing a regular civil appeal. The applicant argued that his serious illness (hypertension and chest pain) caused the earlier delay and that the withdrawal of a writ petition justified the later filing. The respondent contended that no sufficient cause was shown for either the six‑year or the 387‑day delays and that the applications were frivolous and malafide. The court examined the applicant’s explanations and found them vague, noting the lack of any justification for the period from 2019 to 2023 and from April to July 2025. Relying on the principles from Esha Bhattacharjee v. Nafar Academy, the court held that the application failed to meet the threshold for indulgence. Consequently, the interim application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the accompanying second appeal was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to condone a 387‑day delay in filing the second appeal
- Whether the earlier six‑year delay in filing the regular civil appeal can be condoned
- Whether the applications are frivolous or malafide
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- second appeal
- civil procedure
- malafide
- sufficient cause
- judicial discretion
Judgment
1
908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 25893 OF 2025
Navanath Vitthal Atakar (Mali) ….Applicant
VERSUS
Bitu Tukaram Atakar (Mali) and Ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Vijay Killedar, for Applicant.
Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni a/w Adv. Nakul Vivek Shukla, for Respondent No.1.
-------
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
2026.08.17
10:28:40
+0530
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026.
ORDER.
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and
Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks condonation of a delay
of 387 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Order dated 22 nd
March, 2024, passed by the District Judge-1, Barshi (“District Court”), in
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023. In that Application, the
District Court rejected the request made by the Applicants to condone the
delay of six (6) years in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC
and Decree dated 16th September, 2017, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Madha (“Trial Court”), in Regular Civil Suit No.248 of 2006.
3. Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that the Order dated 22nd March, 2024, passed by the District Court in Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023 was initially challenged by the
Applicants before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4180 of 2025 on 26 th
April, 2024. On 7th April, 2025, the Applicant, having realised that the
appropriate remedy for challenging the Order dated 22 nd March, 2024 was
a Second Appeal, withdrew Writ Petition No.4180 of 2025. He submits that
thereafter, the proposed Second Appeal, along with this Application
seeking condonation of delay, was filed on 28th July, 2025. He, therefore,
seeks condonation of delay.
4. Though I am conscious that the merits of the main matter need
not be considered at the stage of adjudication of the application for
condonation of delay, as the subject matter of the proposed Second Appeal
also involves a request for condonation of delay, Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned
Advocate for the Applicant, with the consent of Mr. Prasad Kulkarni,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, was called upon to address the
Court and show the sufficient cause pleaded in Civil Miscellaneous
Application No.102 of 2023 for condoning a delay of about six (6) years in
filing a Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by
the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 248 of 2006.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3
908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC
5. Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, by
referring to paragraph No.7 of the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102
of 2023, submits that the Applicant was suffering from a serious illness. To
clarify, he states that the Applicant had been suffering from hypertension
and chest pain for several years. He submits that the said illness is the
cause for the delay of six (6) years in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against
the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit
No. 248 of 2006.
6. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1,
submits that apart from the Applicant's failure to show any sufficient cause,
in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 is devoid of merit
and substance and is, in fact, malafide. He submits that the Applicant's
intention is to cause harassment by filing frivolous applications in respect
of a lis that has long attained finality. He further submits that no cause has
been shown that can be treated as sufficient cause for the delay of six (6)
years in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023. He further
submits that the District Court has rightly rejected the said Application.
7. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1,
submits that in this Application, there is no reason or explanation, worthy
of the cause, for the period from 7 th April 2025 to 28th July 2025. He
therefore prays for the dismissal of this Application with compensatory
costs.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
4
908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC
8. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
9. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 seeking
condonation of delay of six (6) years in filing the Appeal before the District
Court was filed in the year 2023.
10. The statements in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of
2023 indicate that the Applicant suffered from hypertension and chest pain
up to the year 2019. No explanation is offered for the period from 2019 to
2023 (i.e., the date of filing of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of
2023). When asked to point out the statements in Civil Miscellaneous
Application No. 102 of 2023 explaining the reasons for the delay during
the period from 2019 to 2023, Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, was unable to show any explanation.
11. Reverting to this Application for condonation of delay in filing
the Second Appeal before this Court, this Application is silent for not filing
the Second Appeal from 7th April, 2025 (i.e. the date of withdrawal of Writ
Petition No.4180 of 2025) till 28th July, 2025 (i.e. the date on which the
present Application was filed). Again, Mr. Vijay Kildar, learned Advocate for
the Applicant, had no explanation to offer for the said period.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5
908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC
12. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, has
strenuously urged that the delay, apart from being deliberate and
unexplained, is malafide.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee
Vs. Nafar Academy1, has laid down the principles governing the
consideration of Applications seeking condonation of delay.
14. Given the vague contents of this Application, I am unable to
adopt the normal liberal approach a Court takes while considering an
Application for condonation of delay. This Application is bereft of any
satisfactory explanation, let alone any sufficient cause. No case for
indulgence is, therefore, made out.
15. Interim Application No.216 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall be
no orders as to costs.
16. In view of the dismissal of the Interim Application, the
accompanying Second Appeal (Stamp) No.25893 of 2025 also stands
dismissed.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
1(2013) 12 SCC 649
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…