Bombay High Court
MR. VENUGOPAL BALKRISHNA PILLAI AND ANOTHERversusLIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court condoned the 20‑day delay and ordered that the appeal be admitted.
Summary
The appellants, Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna Pillai and another, filed an appeal against a order of the High Court 20 days after the prescribed period. The respondents, LIC Housing Finance Limited, opposed the condonation of delay but did not file a written opposition. The Court examined the well‑settled Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay and noted that the delay was not gross and the applicants had provided sufficient justification. Accordingly, the Court held that it would be unjust to deprive the appellants of their right to appeal and therefore condoned the delay. The interim application for condonation was allowed, the appeal was listed for admission, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 20 days in filing an appeal can be condoned under established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
- Whether the appellants should be deprived of the right to pursue the appeal due to the delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- civil procedure
- interest of justice
- interim application
Judgment
27-IA-6017-26 IN AOST.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANE
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MANE
Date: 2026.08.18
12:07:26 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6017 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 18927 OF 2026
Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna
Pillai And Another ...Applicant
IN the matter between :
Mr. Venugopal Balkrishna
Pillai And Another ...Appellants
Versus
Lic Housing Finance Limited ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vinay Shingade, for Applicant.
Ms. Shrushti Vishwakarma a/w. Ms. Nashra Zaidi, a/w. Ms. Afreen Khan i/b.
Mr. Yogesh B. Dandekar, for Respondents.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 17 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application
seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal. The delay sought to be
condoned is of 20 days.
2. Upon service, the Respondent is represented by Ms. Vishwakarma, learned
counsel. No written opposition has been filed to the present application. Although
Ms. Vishwakarma has vehemently opposed the application, she would not dispute
the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments governing the consideration of an application for condonation of delay.
Page 1 of 2
Mane
27-IA-6017-26 IN AOST.DOC
In particular, she would not dispute that, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, as set out in the application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be
rendered remediless in pursuing the Appeal.
3. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application
and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the
reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient
cause shown by the applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence
in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.
4. The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
5. The Appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of
objections, if any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.
6. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
7. List the appeal from order on 15 September 2026 .
8. Reply affidavit of the Respondents, if any, be served on all the parties.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…