Bombay High Court
SHOBHA SHRIPRAKASH KULKARNIversusSHARAD KESHAV JOSHI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The petitioner may prefer a second appeal against the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
Shobha Shriprakash Kulkarni filed a writ petition challenging the District Judge's order dismissing her application to condone a delay of over five years in filing an appeal against a judgment of the Court of Small Causes, Pune. The petitioner sought relief to file the appeal despite the delay. The Court held that the appropriate remedy is to file a second appeal against the dismissal order. It also observed that the time spent prosecuting the writ petition can be counted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the petition was disposed, granting the petitioner liberty to file a second appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay can be challenged by a second appeal
- Whether the period spent prosecuting the writ petition can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act — s. 14
Subjects
- writ petition
- condonation of delay
- limitation
- second appeal
- Section 14
- Court of Small Causes
Judgment
7 WP 794-26 .DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2026
Shobha Shriprakash Kulkarni ..Petitioner
Versus
Sharad Keshav Joshi And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Prakash Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the
learned District Judge, whereby an application preferred by the
petitioner to condone the delay of :ve years, seven months and
thirteen days in :ling the appeal against a judgment and decree
passed by the Court of Small Causes at Pune in Special Civil
SANTOSH SANTOSH
Digitally signed by
SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.27
KULKARNI 20:11:58 +0530 Suit No. 1575/2011, came to be dismissed.
3. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to prefer a second
appeal against the said order of the dismissal of the application
for condonation of delay.
4. The petition stands disposed with liberty to the petitioner
to :le a Second Appeal.
1/2
SAINATH
7 WP 794-26 .DOC
5. The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this
petition may be accounted for under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
2/2
SAINATH
Checking your session…