(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4862 of 2020

in

SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.37025 OF 2018

Subhash s/o Tukaram Thakre (Bhill)

= APPLICANT

(Orig.Defendant)

VERSUS

Smt.Sunita w/o Subhash Thakare

= RESPONDENT

(orig.Plaintiff)

-----

Mr.HV Tungar,Advocate for Applicant;

Mr.AJ Patil,Advocate for Respondent

-----

CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.

DATE : 26

^th

August, 2021.

PER COURT :-

1.

Present application has been filed for

getting delay of 583 days condoned in filing Second

Appeal.

2.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for

the respective parties. In order to cut short it

can be stated that both of them have made

submissions in support of their respective

contentions.

3.

The applicant and respondent are husband

and wife. The applicant is original defendant in

HMP No.334/2009 filed before Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Jalgaon for restitution of conjugal

rights. The applicant had resisted the said

(2)

proceeding by filing written statement. He had

filed HMP No.364/2009 before the same Court for

dissolution of marriage. The petition for

restitution of conjugal rights came to be decreed;

whereas the petition for dissolution of marriage,

came to be dismissed on 23.6.2011. The applicant

had filed RCA No.128/2011 and 129/2011 to challenge

the respective decrees. Both the appeals were

dismissed by common judgment by learned District

Judge-4, Jalgaon on 30.1.2017. The applicant says

that he has already filed Second Appeal,

challenging the judgment and decree in respect of

dismissal of his petition for divorce. However, as

regards the other proceeding is concerned, there

was typographical mistake with the judgment of the

first Appellate Court. He was then required to

file Day Application No.1/2017 to get said error

corrected and after it was got corrected, he is

approaching this Court. However, there is delay of

583 days. He says that the said delay was beyond

his control.

4.

Correction in the typographical mistake

occurred in the judgment can be seen and,

therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve that

part. However, when common judgment is given and

he has already filed the Second Appeal, challenging

the common decree, he ought not to have made the

application for correction after a long time and,

therefore, definitely inconvenience that would have

caused to the respondent deserves to be

compensated. Hence, following order, -

(3)

ORDER

i.

The application stands allowed

and disposed of.

ii.

The delay caused in filing the

Second Appeal stands condoned, subject to

deposit of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

ten thousand) within a period of one

month from today in this Court.

iii.

After the amount is deposited,

Registry to verify and register the

Second Appeal.

iv.

The amount of costs be given to

the respondent.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)

JUDGE

BDV