IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 05 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.19 OF 2026 CHATURBHUJ MOHANLAL PALIWAL VERSUS NANEBAI GAHUDAS SONTAKKE (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Appellant.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 08th JANUARY 2026

1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant.

2. By this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., the appellant raises challenge to the order dated 01.01.2026, passed by District Judge-1, Warora, Dist. Chandrapur, in Misc. Civil Application No.20 of 2024, rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. by challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Court of 2^nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora, in Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2012, along with an application for condonation of delay demonstrating sufficient cause. However, without affording an opportunity of leading evidence, the first appellate court rejected the application for condonation of delay and resultantly, the appellant is deprived from raising challenge to the judgment of the trial court on merits. In support of her submissions, she relies on judgment of this Court in the case of Holya Lasha Mahale and Another Vs. Raghunath Holya Mahale, [2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 81].

4. In view of this, issue notice to the respondents on the following substantial questions of law.

i) Whether the impugned order passed by the first appellate court deciding the application for condonation of delay without affording an opportunity to lead evidence to the applicant is sustainable in law ?

ii) Whether the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing first appeal, without due consideration to the substantive and valuable rights of the appellant/bonafide purchaser, depicts a hyper technical approach resulting into miscarriage of justice ?

5. Notice be returnable after two weeks.

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.19 OF 2026

6. This is an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, for grant of stay to the effect and operation of No.15 of 2012.

7. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is bonafide purchaser of the suit property, who has purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale-deed and by paying valuable consideration. It is submitted that the sale-deed with respect to the suit property is likely to be executed pursuant to the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2023, passed by the trial court and since the same is with respect to the property owned by the appellant, interim relief is prayed for.

8. In view of this, issue notice to the respondents, returnable after two weeks.

9. The appellant is permitted to serve the respondents by private mode, in addition to regular mode of service, including service on the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/s before the executing court and file affidavit of service in that regard by next date and also permitted to serve the respondents by way of Humdast.

10. In the meantime, by way of ad-interim relief, it is directed No.15 of 2012, shall remain stayed, till next date.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd