Bombay High Court

PAPPU RAMLAL MISTRYversusV.VASUKI VELUSWAMI AND ANR

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court condoned the 52‑day delay and allowed the appeal to be numbered.

Summary

The applicant, Pappu Ramlal Mistry, filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 52‑day delay in filing First Appeal No. 13762 of 2026. The applicant submitted a memo explaining the reasons for the delay, which the court found to constitute sufficient cause. Respondents opposed the application orally but did not file a written opposition. Relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence on condoning delay, the court held that the delay was not gross and the justification was appropriate. Consequently, the court ordered that the delay be condoned and the appeal be numbered, disposing of the interim application in the interest of justice.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 52 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Subjects

condonation of delay
interim application
civil appellate jurisdiction
procedural law
appeal filing

Judgment

                                                                    23-IA-6059-2026.DOC



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6059 OF 2026
                                    IN
                     FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 13762 OF 2026


Pappu Ramlal Mistry                                          … Applicant(s)

              Versus

V. Vasuki Veluswami and another                              ...Respondent(s)

                               _______
Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Vinay Niar, Mr. Sahil Sayyed i/b Mr. Arun Panickar,
Advocates for the Applicant.
Mr. Ashutosh Kausik a/w Ms. Swati Dorairaj a/w Ms. Laxmi Mishra, Advocates for
Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Smriti Sanjeev i/b Mhatre Law Associates for Respondent No. 2.


                                       _______

                           CORAM:          AARTI SATHE, J.

                               DATE:       02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C.

1.         This interim application has been filed by the Applicant for

condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the present First Appeal St. No. 13762 of

2026. On a perusal of the reasons as set out in the aforesaid Interim Application,

explaining the delay that has been sought to be condoned, this Court is of the view

that a sufficient cause has been made out and hence I am inclined to condone the

aforesaid delay.




                                  Page 1 of 2
Tiwari
                                                                      23-IA-6059-2026.DOC



2.          Learned counsels appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have

orally opposed the aforesaid Application. There is no written opposition filed to

this application.   Considering the well settled position in law in a catena of

judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the principles to be followed on

condoning the delay, and in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out

in the memo of 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.          In view thereof, Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a) Delay condoned. Appeal to be numbered.

5.          Interim application is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.




                                              (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                     Page 2 of 2
Tiwari

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…