M/S. P. D. AND CONMPANY THRU PARTNERversusPANVEL INDUSTRIAL CO OP. ESTATE LTD THRU CHAIRMAN AND ORS

Renuka Thakur                                               21-WP-7892-2026.docx


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 7892 OF 2026
M/S. P. D. And Company Through                         ...Petitioner
Partner
                      V/s.

Panvel Industrial Co Op. Estate Ltd                   ...Respondents
Through Chairman and Ors
                          ________________
Ms. Aditi Naikare with Mr. Pradeep Thorat for Petitioner
Mr. Omkar Nagwekar for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Omkar Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 2a and 2b.
                                 ________________
                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                           DATED: 16 SEPTEMBER 2026.


P.C.:


1)               The Petitioner challenges order dated 22 August 2025
passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai
(Appellate Court) rejecting the delay condonation Application in filing
substantive appeal against the judgment and order dated 9 May 2024
passed by the Co-operative Court, Raigad (Co-operative Court).
.
2)               I have heard Ms. Naikare, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Mr. Nagwekar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 1-society and Mr. Kulkrni, the learned counsel appearing
for Respondent Nos. 2a and 2b. I have considered the submissions

                                     Page No.1 of 5
                                  16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                            21-WP-7892-2026.docx


canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also
perused the records of the case filed alogwith the Petition.


3)              It appears that the plot in question was allotted to the
partnership firm M/s P.D. and Company. The firm had three partners. It is
the grouse of the two partners of the firm Kishor Nathuram Dandekar
and Suhas Nathuram Dandekar that the third partner Mrs. Pooja Dipak
Dandekar has unauthorisedly sold the plot to Respondent No. 2.
Accordingly, the validity of the transaction was questioned in the dispute
filed before the Co-operative Court. The dispute was prosecuted by
Kishor and Suhas in their capacity as partners of the firm . It appears that
Respondent No. 2 raised objection of maintainability of the dispute in
the name of the firm without joining the three partners. However, though
the dispute is dismissed by judgment and order dated 9 May 2024, the
learned Judge of the Co-operative Court did not dismiss the same on the
ground of maintainability. When it came to filing of Appeal against the
judgment and order dated 9 May 2024, it appears that Suhas Nathuram
Dandekar was not available for filing of Appeal and accordingly only
Kishor Nathuram Dandekar filed an Appeal alongwith application for
condonation of delay. There was delay of about five months in filing the
Appeal. The delay was sought to be explained by Kishor Nathuram
Dandekar contending that he suffers from various ailments on account of
undergoing hip joint operation in the year 2005 and he is not able to
stand and walk properly. So far as the other partner Suhas is concerned,
Kishor took a stand that Suhas and his wife underwent cataract
operations on account of which he could not prefer the Appeal within the
prescribed time. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court has recorded

                                   Page No.2 of 5
                                16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                                       21-WP-7892-2026.docx


following findings while rejecting the Application for condonation of
delay:
                  21. It is a fact that the applicant has not produced on record any
                  medical papers regarding his admission in the hospital from the
                  period 14/5/2024 till 17/12/2018. Even if for the sake of argument, it
                  is presumed that applicant No.1 was suffering from various ailments
                  and illness, but the second partner namely Suhas Nathuram Dandekar
                  who is another partner of the partnership firm M/s. P.D. and Company
                  was available for filing the appeal in time. The applicant has not
                  explained anywhere as to why the appeal could not be filed by the
                  second partner namely Suhas Nathuram Dandekar. The other partner
                  of the firm namely Suhas Nathuram Dandekar has produced on record
                  his as well as his wife's cataract operation papers along with list dated
                  17/02/2025. A judicial note can be taken of the fact that due to
                  advanced technology nowadays cataract operation has become a
                  minor operation and a person even does not require to get admitted
                  even for a day in the hospital for the said operation. Generally, the
                  said operation is performed within one or two hours and the patient is
                  discharged by the doctors. Hence, the ground of cataract operation of
                  either Suhas Dandekar or his wife does not provide any sufficient
                  grounds to condone the delay. Even after the operation, within seven
                  days a person who has undergone cataract operation can start his daily
                  pursuits. From the medical papers produced by the other partner of
                  the firm M/s. P.D. and Company namely Suhas Dandekar, it is seen
                  that he has undergone operation on 10/02/2025 and was discharged
                  on the same date. The appeal came to be filed in the month of
                  December 2024 and the other partner of the firm namely Suhas
                  Dandekar has not brought on record a single document to show that
                  he was unable to file the appeal in time due to some medical grounds.
                  The medical papers of Suhas Dandekar for the period of 10/02/2025
                  are not helpful to him to say that he was prevented from his illness
                  from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the grounds which are made out
                  by the applicants in their application are not sufficient to condone the
                  delay.

4)              The Appellate Court has thus accepted the contention of
Petitioner-Kishor suffering from ailments but questioned non-filing of
Appeal by Suhas. However, some documents were produced in respect of
ailments suffered by Suhas and his wife. Though, the learned Judge of
the Co-operative Appellate Court has held that due to technological
advancements, a person undergoing cataract operation does not suffer
from any disability for a long time for following daily pursuits, the said

                                        Page No.3 of 5
                                     16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur                                              21-WP-7892-2026.docx


aspect could have been taken into consideration for imposition of costs
while condoning the delay. Once ailments suffered by the Petitioner-
Kishor and by Suhas and his wife is accepted, insignificant delay of five
months in filing the Appeal ought to have been condoned. There is no
denial to the position that both Kishor and Suhas are senior citizens.
They are currently age 72 and 70 years. In that view of the matter,
ailments of Kishor and Suhas and his wife preventing them from filing
the Appeal within prescribed time cannot be descarded altogether. In my
view therefore, the Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the Application
for condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, delay in filing the Appeal ought to have been condoned by
imposition of costs.


5)              Mr. Kulkarni questions maintainability of the present
Petition since the same is filed by only one partner of the firm. However,
as observed above, the dispute is not rejected on the ground of
maintainability. The issue of maintainability of dispute at the instance of
only two partners of the firm can be decided by the Appellate Court as
and when the Appeal is heard on merits. All contentions of parties in
that regard are expressly kept open.


6)              I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-


(i)    Order dated 22 August 2025 passed by the Co-operative Appellate
Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 is set aside.




                                    Page No.4 of 5
                                 16 SEPTEMBER 2026
                          Renuka Thakur                                                  21-WP-7892-2026.docx


                          (ii)        Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 is allowed in terms of
                          prayers made therein by condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.


                          (iii)       The Co-operative Court shall register the Appeal and proceed to
                          decide the same on its own merits.


                          (iv)        Petitioner shall pay to Respondent No.2 cost of Rs. 1 lakh within a
                          period of four weeks.


                          (v)         Payment of cost shall be condition precedent for registration of
                          the Appeal.


                          7)                With the above direction, Writ Petition is allowed and
                          disposed of.


                                                                                 [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                                Page No.5 of 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                          16 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 18/09/2026 14:47:25