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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
M/s. Amar Builders A Proprietory Firm Through Its Proprietor - Appellant
Versus
Champalal Indraraj Sand Alias Rahtekar - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13939 OF 2018
Decided On : 27-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nachiket V. Khaladkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, Advocate, for the Respondents.

The court affirmed that the Appellate Court has broad discretion to condone delays in filing cross-objections, especially when justified by unique circumstances such as prolonged stays and the death of parties involved.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 22 - Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay in filing cross-objections in a civil appeal - The court emphasized that the delay was not excessive due to the stay on the appeal for several years and the subsequent death of appellants - The court found that the appeal was never taken up for final hearing, thus justifying the delay in filing cross-objections. (Paras 3, 6, 23, 24)

(B) Delay Condonation - The court held that the Appellate Court has wide discretion to extend the time for filing cross-objections and that sufficient cause is not strictly required under Order XLI Rule 22, allowing for a liberal interpretation in the interest of justice. (Paras 10, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order dismissing their application for condonation of delay in filing cross-objections in a civil appeal that had been pending for nearly a decade, primarily due to stays and the deaths of the original appellants. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the application for condonation of delay, recognizing the unique circumstances surrounding the case. (Paras 24)

Issues: The main issues included whether the delay in filing cross-objections was excessive and whether the appeal had been taken up for final hearing. (Paras 3, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the delay was justifiable given the prolonged stay on the appeal and the circumstances of the appellants' deaths, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach to delay condonation under the relevant procedural rules. (Paras 23, 24)

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Khaladkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 4th August 2018 passed by the learned District Judge-5, Pune below Exhibit-54 in Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009. By the impugned order, Application filed for condonation of delay in preferring cross-objection in said Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009 has been dismissed.

3. Mr. Khaladkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised the following contentions:

i. Although apparently the delay is of 8 years, 8 months and 5 days, in fact, there is no delay as the Appeal was never taken up for hearing and for about 6 years the hearing of the said Appeal was stayed.

ii. The Appeal has been filed on 20th December 2008 and along with the Appeal itself amendment Application bearing Exhibits-8 and 9 have been filed by the present Respondents (Appellants/Defendants) seeking amendment in the plaint as well as in the written statement to the counterclaim. Said Amendment Applications were allowed on 20th April 2009. The said order was challenged by the present Petitioner i.e. Defendant by filing the Writ Petition No.9688 of 2010 and this Court granted stay to the hearing of the said Appeal. The said order dated 20th April 2009 passed below Exhibit-8 and 9 in Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009 allowing amendment has been set aside by the High Court by the order dated 20th July 2016. The Respondents filed SLP in the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 20th July 2016 and the said SLP was dismissed on 16th December 2016.

iii. In the meanwhile, as the Appellant No.1 passed away on 29th September 2010 and Appellant No.2 passed away on 5th August 2011, Applications were filed in said Civil Appeal No.9 of 2009 to bring on record heirs and the said Applications were allowed by the order dated 27th July 2017.

iv. The amended Appeal memo was served on the Petitioners on11th August 2017 and immediately on 7th October 2017, cross-objections have been filed by the present Petitioners along with Application for condonation of delay.

v. He therefore, submitted that although the delay mentioned in the impugned order is of 8 years, 8 months and 5 days, in fact, there is no delay as the Appeal was never taken up for hearing. He submitted that hearing of the said Appeal was stayed for about 6 years and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court of rejecting Delay Condonation Application in filing cross-objection is required to be quashed and set aside.

vi. Mr. Khaladkar, learned Counsel relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.Kalu Ladku Mhatre, [2011 (6) All MR 242]

4. On the other hand, Mr. Kanetkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents raised the following submissions:

i. The Application for amendment in the written statement to the counterclaim and to the plaint was allowed by the order dated 20th April 2009. Amended written statement to the counterclaim has been filed before the Appellate Court on 30th April 2009. On the very day, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner (i.e. Respondent before the Appellate Court) filed Application for allowing amendment in the written statement in view of amendment in the plaint and amendment in the written statement to thecounterclaim in view of amendment in the writte statement. It appears that on 26th June 2009, an Application was filed bearing Exhibit-28 for framing issues and accordingly, the Appeal was adjourned for framing of issues, may be perhaps as the plaint and the counterclaim were allowed to be amended. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time for submission of the Paper-Book on 15th September 2009, 28th October 2009, 5th December 2009, 6th January 2010 and 9th February 2010. He submitted that the Roznama of the learn

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 Back to top