RAMAKANT DATTATRYA MULEversusUMAKANT DATTATRYA MULE DECEASED THROUGH LRS USHA UMAKANT MULE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9635
                                                1 of 4                    101-WP.8166.2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               101 WRIT PETITION NO. 8166 OF 2023

                                   RAMAKANT DATTATRYA MULE
                                             VERSUS
                  UMAKANT DATTATRYA MULE DECEASED THROUGH LRS USHA
                                   UMAKANT MULE AND OTHERS
                                                ...
               Mr. Sahebrao M. Pandit, Advocate for the Petitioner.
               Mr. R. V. Sundale and Ms. Varsha Sundale, Advocate for Respondent
               Nos.1(a) to 1 (c) and 3.
                                                ...

                                        CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE     :       4th MARCH 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

               2.        By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the

               order dated 18.08.2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned District

               Judge-4, Osmanabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67 of 2020,

               whereby the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay

               came to be rejected.


               3.        Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the

               Petitioner had filed an appeal challenging the order dated 07.04.2017

               passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

               Osmanabad in R.C.S. No.295 of 2014. However, there was a delay of

               three years, two months and fifteen days in filing the said appeal.
                                 2 of 4                101-WP.8166.2023




4.        It is further submitted that the learned Advocate, who was

representing the Petitioner before the Trial Court, had not informed the

Petitioner about the proceedings of the suit. As the written statement

was not filed, the suit proceeded ex-parte and ultimately came to be

decreed. The Petitioner was working as a labourer at Pune for the last

ten years, and therefore he had no knowledge about the decree passed

by the Trial Court. It is therefore submitted that the delay occurred due

to the said circumstances, but the learned District Judge rejected the

application on the ground that the reasons for delay were not properly

explained.


5.        Per contra, Mr. R. V. Sundale, learned Advocate for

Respondent Nos.1(A) to 1(C) and 3, supported the impugned order

and submitted that the Petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the

delay of three years, two months and fifteen days. He submits that the

Petitioner was required to explain the day-to-day delay, and since the

delay was not properly explained, the learned District Judge has rightly

rejected the application.


6.        I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and perused the application as well as the order passed by the learned

District Judge. Upon perusal, it reveals that the suit proceeded ex-parte

against the Petitioner and consequently the decree came to be passed.
                                 3 of 4                101-WP.8166.2023




In the application for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has stated

that he was working as a labourer in Pune for the last ten years and the

proceedings of the suit were not communicated to him by his Advocate.


7.        In view of the same, it appears that despite engaging an

Advocate, the written statement was not filed and therefore the

Petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, even

after passing of the decree, the Petitioner had no knowledge about the

same.


8.        The Petitioner has further stated that on 19.06.2020, the

Respondents abused the Petitioner and a complaint was lodged,

pursuant to which N.C.R. No.450 of 2020 came to be registered on

20.06.2020 at Police Station, Osmanabad. It was at that time that the

Petitioner came to know about the decree passed against him.


9.        Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the

Petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay. Therefore, I am inclined

to allow the application for condonation of delay.


10.       In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order

dated 18.08.2022 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned District Judge-

4, Osmanabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.67 of 2020 is

quashed and set aside.
                                          4 of 4                  101-WP.8166.2023




          11.      The application filed by petitioner is allowed and the delay of

          three years, two months and fifteen days is condoned.




                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef