Bombay High Court

RAVINDRA MURALIDHAR POTDARversusSUREKHA PRABHAKAR DIXIT AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, subject to payment of costs.

Summary

The applicant, Ravindra Muralidhar Potdar, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of 10 years, 11 months and 24 days in preferring a first appeal against a judgment dated 30 April 2024. The Coordinate Bench had earlier quashed a district court order and granted the applicant liberty to file the first appeal, noting that the earlier 2015 judgment was challengeable. The applicant argued that there was no mala‑fides and that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, while Respondent No. 7 contended that the applicant had taken the wrong remedy and that the delay should not be condoned. The Court found no oblique motive, observed that the applicant had acted under a bona‑fide impression, and decided to condone the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the Advocates Bar Association. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the delay was condoned, and the first appeal was ordered to be registered.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of nearly eleven years in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act — s. 14

Subjects

condonation of delay
Limitation Act
Section 14
first appeal
civil appellate jurisdiction
mala fides
wrong remedy

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8676




                                            1                         31.IA-321-2026.odt

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2026
                                              IN
                                FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1714 OF 2026

                           Ravindra Muralidhar Potdar              ...Applicant

                                                   VERSUS

                           Surekha Prabhakar Dixit and others      ...Respondents

                    Shri Siyal F. Magdum, Advocate for the Applicant.
                    Shri Nikhil N. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7

                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                       DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                    FINAL ORDER :


                    .      Heard learned counsel for the applicant.    The applicant
                    seeks to condone delay of 10 years 11 months 24 days caused in
                    preferring the first appeal.


                    2.     It is submitted that against the judgment dated 30th April,
                    2024, Appeal from Order No. 731 of 2024 was preferred. It is
                    observed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026
                    that the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in Misc.
                    Application No. 201 of 2012 was susceptible to challenge in first
                    appeal to be preferred in the High Court. It is further recorded
                    that the District Court wrongly entertained R.C.A. No. 203 of
                    2017. Accordingly the order of the District Court was quashed
                          2                         31.IA-321-2026.odt

and liberty was given to the present applicant to prefer first
appeal in this Court. It is further submitted that there are no
mala-fides on the part of the applicant in preferring appeal
belatedly. Applicant is entitled to get the benefit of Sec. 14 of the
Limitation Act.


3.    Application is contested by the respondent No. 7.         It is
submitted that the applicant resorted to wrong remedy.           The
fault is attributable to him and no benefit can be given to him.


4.    The averments of the application have not been traversed
by the respondents. I do not infer any oblique motive on the part
of the applicant in preferring appeal belatedly. The wrong course
taken by the applicant is apparent from the observations
recorded by the Coordinate Bench in order dated 10.02.2026 in
Appeal from Order No. 731 of 2024. It is desirable to decide the
appeal on merits. The applicant is said to have been prosecuting
wrong remedy under bona fide impression.


5.    For the reasons stated in the application, the interim
application is allowed.       The delay stands condoned subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousands) to be paid to
the Advocates Bar Association, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur within
a period of three (03) weeks from today. Office shall register the
first appeal. Interim application stands disposed of.



                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/Sept. 26

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…