Back
MILIND N.JADHAV
Shamrao Piraji Kadam – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Shivaji Chavan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Milind N. Jadhav, J.—Heard.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the Judgment & Order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned District Judge - 6, Sangli in Misc. Civil Application No. 213 of 2017. The Petitioner filed application seeking condonation of delay of 30 months and 14 days in filing a substantive First Appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The date of exparte judgment & decree in Special Civil Suit No. 188 of 2013 is 05.03.2015. The Petitioner filed the First Appeal for setting aside the aforementioned exparte decree on 21.09.2017. Along with First Appeal, he filed Misc. Civil Application No. 213 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay on the ground that a fraud was committed on the Petitioner and the Petitioner came to know about the passing of exparte decree immediately before filing the First Appeal.
3. The relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the present Writ Petition are as follows:
3.1. On 22.11.2013 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 14.08.2013 against the Petitioner (Defendant No. 1). Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No. 2) is the wife of the Petitioner, which
First Appeal—Long delay can be condoned where strong and significant grounds are furnished by petitioner to explain delay.
Adequate reasons for delay, Fraudulent service of summons, Jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227
Circumstances, they cannot deny about the knowledge of the decree at a belated stage. The delay was not properly explained.
The court affirmed that a party suppressing material facts cannot be granted equitable relief for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.
The court emphasized the importance of explaining delays and the obligation of parties to actively participate in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal is not a matter of right and must be exercised judiciously, considering the merits of the case only when sufficient cause....
The court emphasized that mere reliance on counsel does not justify inordinate delay in filing an appeal; sufficient cause must be shown by the appellant.
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
