Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
Anjali Ramakant Attarde - Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Atmaram Sonawane and Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No.251 Of 2023 With Civil Application No.5883 Of 2023 With Civil Application No.6880 Of 2023
Decided On : 08-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. H. Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Adv.

The court affirmed that a party suppressing material facts cannot be granted equitable relief for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - The appellant challenged the rejection of her application for condonation of delay in filing a civil appeal, which was dismissed by the first appellate court on grounds of deliberate delay and suppression of material facts. The court emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken in such applications unless the delay is found to be deliberate. (Paras 3, 10, 12)

(B) Legal principles - The court reiterated that parties coming with unclean hands can be denied equitable relief, and that the circumstances for condoning delay must be considered on a case-by-case basis. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, as the original defendant, sought to condone a delay of over two years in appealing a decree for specific performance of a contract. The first appellate court found that the appellant had suppressed material facts and had not provided sufficient cause for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the first appellate court's decision, finding no substantial question of law and confirming that the delay was a deliberate misuse of the legal process.

Issues: The main issue was whether the first appellate court erred in refusing to condone the delay, which was treated as deliberate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's suppression of facts and lack of sufficient cause justified the dismissal of her appeal.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandipkumar C. More, J.)

1. Heard finally at admission stage.

2. The appellant, who is original defendant No.1ee in Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 2001, is challenging the judgment and order dated 10/04/2023 passed by the learned District Judge-5, Jalgaon i.e. the learned first appellate court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.250 of 2017 whereby her application seeking condonation of delay of 2 years 1 month and 20 days in filing regular civil appeal, has been rejected. The present respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the original plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit.

3. Background facts are as under :

The present respondent Nos.1 & 2 had filed Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2001 against present appellant as well as respondent Nos.3 to 10 for specific performance of contract in respect of suit properties namely lang Gat No.52 and land Gat No.53, situated at village Kusumba Khurd, Taluka & District : Jalgaon. On 02/05/2015, the learned trial court i.e. 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon decreed the suit and the present appellant as well as respondent Nos.3 to 10 were directed to execute sale deed of the suit properties in favour of present respondent Nos.1 & 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant had filed regular civil appeal alongwith Civil Miscellaneous Application No.250 of 2017 for condonation of delay of the period mentioned above. However, on 10/04/2023 the learned first appellate court rejected the aforesaid delay condonation application and consequently the regular civil appeal also got dismissed automatically. Hence, this second appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned first appellate court has taken a hyper technical view in dismissing the delay condonation application under the judgment and order. According to him, this court and the Hono’ble Apex Court in many judgments, have taken a liberal approach while dealing with the application of condonation of delay. According to him, the valuable right of the appellant of filing appeal, is lost. In support of his submission, he relief upon following judgments

B) Narhari s/o Shrawan Moon vs. Silas s/o Kannobaji Punwatkar and others, reported in 2022(3) Mh.L.J.;

C) Yashwant Hariparit (since deceased) through His Legal Heir Sandip Balkrishna Parit and others vs. Sunita Ashok Bhandare and others, reported in (2020) 2 Mah. LJ 191;

D) Civil Application No.2636 of 2024 in SA No. 890 of 2016 ( Sandhya Santosh Kyatamwar L.Rs. Santosh Sayanna Kyatamwar and others vs. Yeshwant Dattatrya Dipak and others, of this court passed on 07/03/2024;

E) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353;

F) Raheem Shah and another vs. Govind Singh and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 910;

G) Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil and another vs. Godawaribai Laxmansingh Gahirewar and others, reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 235;

H) Shewantabai wd/o Kashinath Kumbhare (since deceased) Suresh Kashinath Kumbhare and others vs. Purushottam s/o Mahadeorao Ambatkar, reported in 2014(2) Mh.L.J. 848 and

I) Ram Kumar Agarwal and another vs. Thawar Das (dead) Through LRS, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 303;

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the original plaintiffs, strongly opposed submissions made on behalf of the appellant. He pointed out that the impugned judgment and order is self-explanatory. According to him, the present appellant has abused the process of law by suppressing material facts on record and filed frivolous application for condonation of delay despite taking active part in the proceeding before the learned trial court. According to him, pending writ petition as well as the partition proceeding filed by the appellant, have no bearing at all on the present matter. He submitted that a party causing deliberate delay should not be spared. He also re