Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection in Second Appeals No. 658/2007 and 701/2007. The applicant, Chhagan Trimbak Lokhande, sought to file cross-objection against the judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.04.1984. The suit was filed by Subhash Shivram Bhadane (original plaintiff) against Kashinath Trimbak Lokhande (owner) for specific performance of contract regarding suit land at block No. 18 admeasuring 6858 sq.ft. at Pimpalner. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court modified the decree. The second appeals were filed by the defendants. The applicant, who was a defendant in the suit, sought to file cross-objection after a delay of over 8 years. The court heard the learned advocates for the parties. The applicant's explanation for the delay was that he was pursuing other remedies and was under the impression that the cross-objection could be filed at any time. The court found the explanation vague and not supported by any evidence. The court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation. The application was dismissed, and the cross-objection was not admitted.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The applicant sought condonation of delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection in second appeals arising from a suit for specific performance. The court held that the explanation for delay was vague and not supported by any evidence, and the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The application was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Delay in Filing Cross-Objection - The original plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23.04.1984. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court modified the decree. The cross-objection was filed after a delay of over 8 years. The court found no sufficient cause for the delay and dismissed the application. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection in second appeals should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the cross-objection is not admitted.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Unexplained delay
- Cross-objection
- Second appeal
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 22
Civil Application No. 13940 of 2017 with Second Appeal No. 658 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 13941 of 2017 in X-Objst No. 31233 of 2017 with Second Appeal No. 701 of 2007
Mr. B.R. Warma for Applicant, Mr. S.S. Choudhari holding for Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Subhodh Shah for Respondent No. 3
Dattatraya Krishna Patil, Sau. Kalpana W/o. Rajendra Dhamane, Subhash Shivram Bhadane, Kashinath Trimbak Lokhande (since deceased through legal heirs)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil application for condonation of delay in filing cross-objection in second appeals arising from a suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection.
Filing Reason
The applicant sought to file cross-objection against the judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance, but there was a delay of over 8 years.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance; the first appellate court modified the decree; second appeals were filed by the defendants.
Issues
Whether the delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he was pursuing other remedies and was under the impression that cross-objection could be filed at any time.
The respondents opposed the application, stating that the delay was inordinate and unexplained.
Ratio Decidendi
The delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross-objection is inordinate and unexplained. The explanation given by the applicant is vague and not supported by any evidence. No sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an application for condoning delay of 3015 and 3166 days in filing cross objection and for admitting cross objection in Second Appeals 658/2007 and 701/2007.
Heard the learned Advocate Mr. Warma for the applicant, Mr. Subdoh Shah, Advocate for Respondent No. 3- original plaintiff and Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Procedural History
The suit for specific performance was filed in 1992. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court modified the decree. The defendants filed second appeals in 2007. The applicant filed cross-objection in 2017 with a delay of 3015 and 3166 days. The present application seeks condonation of that delay.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
