SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 244

A.P.BHANGALE
Shewantabai – Appellant
Versus
Purushottam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Nikhil A. Gaikwad, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.S. Nandanwar, Advocate.

Judgment

1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. Admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Whether in the facts and circumstances the first Appellate Court erred by refusing to hear first appeal on merits by refusing to condone delay?

My answer is in the affirmative for the reasons as stated below.

3. This appeal arises from order dt. 8.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha whereby the learned first Appellate Judge refused to condone delay on the ground of absence of reasonable explanation for the delay caused to prefer the First Appeal. It appears that present appellants are, in fact, legal heirs of appellant before the first Appellate Court namely Smt. Shewantabai Kashinath Kumbhare, who is referred to in the impugned order and who is no more living. Most of the reasoning given by the first Appellate Judge was about age of applicant Shewantabai as to whether she was aged 67 years or 82 years and also certificate regarding medical treatment of Shewantabai as to whether she was suffering from hypertension, anaemia with general debility due to old age and whether she was advised bed rest for the period









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top