Bombay High Court
KANCHAN W/O SANJAY GUPTAversusMANOJ SHANKARLAL GUPTA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court upheld the district court's order condoning the delay in filing the civil appeal.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a district court order that condoned a 1,053‑day delay in filing a civil appeal against a 2011 decree. The High Court noted that the delay was inordinate but accepted the respondents' evidence of ill health as a justification and found the lower court had exercised its discretion in a detailed 16‑page order. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the condonation order. The petitioner also raised the issue of non‑payment of costs imposed by the district court, asserting that the writ order should not extend the time for cost deposit. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the order does not extend the deadline for cost payment, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the district court's condonation of a 1,053‑day delay in filing a civil appeal is valid.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's discretion in condoning delay.
- Whether the writ petition order extends the time for depositing costs imposed by the district court.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil appeal
- costs deposit
- writ petition
- discretion
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:39940
Megha 23_wp_12283_2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12283 OF 2018
Kanchan W/o Sanjay Gupta ...Petitioner
V/s.
Manoj Shankarlal Gupta and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Vrushal N. Gupta for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.V. Nelson-Rajan, APP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 12 July 2018 passed by the
learned District Judge-6, Thane, allowing Civil Misc. Application No.479
of 2013 and condoning the delay in filing Civil Appeal challenging the
decree dated 12 January 2011 passed in Special Civil Suit No.242 of 2001.
2) I have heard Mr. Gupta, the learned cousnel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Nelson-Rajan, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
Page No.1 of 2
30 September 2026
Megha 23_wp_12283_2018
3) No doubt delay in filing the Appeal is slightly inordinate in the
present case i.e. 1053 days. However, it appears that the contesting
Respondets produced some material to suggest ill-health of Applicant
No.2, who was apparently hospitalised and was required to take medical
treatement from time to time. The Appellate Court has applied its mind
to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and has passed
a detailed order running into 16 pages while condoning the delay in
filing the Civil Appeal. Considering the fact that there was justification
pleaded for condonation of delay and that the Appellate Court has
exercised discretion in condoning the delay, I am not inclined to
interfere in the impugned order.
4) At this stage, Mr. Gupta submits that the Applicants before the
District Court have not deposited costs of Rs.15,000/- imposed vide order
dated 12 July 2018. If this is the case, the Applicants would suffer
consequences thereof. This order shall not be treated as extension of
time for deposit of amount of costs awarded by the District Court.
5) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 30 September 2026
Date: 01/10/2026 11:21:47
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.