Bombay High Court
NARI J KHUBCHANDANI THR POA DHANOTTAM V LONKARversusMANOJ ISSARDAS ATHWANI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court condoned the three‑to‑four‑day delay in filing the reply, subject to a cost of Rs 10,000 to be deposited.
Summary
The petition arose from a notice served under section 18(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on 4 October 2024. The petitioner filed a reply with vakalatnama on 6 January 2025, i.e., 94 days later, exceeding the 30‑day period plus the 60‑day extension permitted under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC by about three to four days. The petitioner contended that, per the Supreme Court’s decision in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala (2018) 6 SCC 639, such a minor delay could be condoned on sufficient cause and the opposite party could be compensated by costs. The Court examined the applicability of the procedural rule and the precedent, and held that the delay was indeed minor. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay subject to the petitioner depositing Rs 10,000 as costs within four weeks. The petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the three‑to‑four‑day delay in filing the reply under section 18(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act can be condoned
- Whether Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure limits the filing period to 90 days
- Whether the opposite party may be awarded costs as compensation for the delay
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VIII, Rule 1
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 18(1)
Subjects
- delay condonation
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Section 18
- Order VIII Rule 1
- Cost
- Civil Procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34552
Diksha Rane 18 WP 2532 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2532 OF 2026
NARI J KHUBCHANDANI THR POA
DHANOTTAM V LONKAR ..PETITIONER
VS
MANOJ ISSARDAS ATHWANI & ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. S. S. Panchpor a/w. Adv. Mahima Sharma, Adv. Andil
Parmeshwar for petitioner.
Adv. Soumitra C. Jadhav for respondent nos.1 & 2.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the notice of the
application u/s.18(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999, is
served upon the present petitioner/respondent in the application, on
4th October 2024. He has filed his reply along with vakalatnama on
6th January 2025 i.e. within 94 days from the date of the service.
Page 1 of 2
19th AUGUST, 2026
Diksha Rane 18 WP 2532 2026.docx
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that even
applying the principle of Order VIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure, the time limit to file the same would be 30 days plus 60
days. In the instant case, the delay would be further of another three-
four days. However, the Supreme Court has observed in the case of
Atcom Technologies Limited vs. Y. A. Chunawala and Company
reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639, that the delay can be condoned for
sufficient reason and that other party can be compensated with cost.
4. Considering the delay being the minor, the delay is
condoned subject to the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be
deposited in the trial Court within a period of four weeks.
5. The petition stands disposed of.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 2 of 2
19th AUGUST, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/08/2026 15:53:24
Checking your session…