1 903 sa.529.92.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 903 SECOND APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1992 GANPATRAO YASHWANTRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS VERSUS PURUSHOTTAM SHRINIWAS JOSHI ... Advocate for Appellant : Ms. S. S. Choudhary. Adv. for Respdt. No.1/1-a : Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, h/f Mr. A. D. Kawre. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5604 OF 1998 IN SA/529/1992 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4577 OF 1992 IN SA/529/1992 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3040 OF 2024 IN SA/529/1992 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 1995 IN SA/529/1992 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2728 OF 2007 IN SA/529/1992 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3257 OF 2024 IN SA/529/1992 ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 18th August, 2026. P.C.: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3257 OF 2024 1 This application is filed for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and permission to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1-B-v / Nilesh Sathe on record. 2 903 sa.529.92.odt 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application. There is delay of 4967 days caused in filing this application. 3 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay is not deliberately caused. It is therefore, prayed to allow the application. 4 The learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 5 On perusal of the application, it appears that the delay is not deliberately caused. Therefore, to decide the lis finally on merits and in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M. D. A. Chaudhary Vs. Kartar Chand and Ors., MANU/SC/0877/2025, the application deserves to be allowed, in the interest of justice, as the delay is not deliberately caused. 6 For the reasons stated in the application, the application deserves to be allowed as the delay is not caused deliberately and intentionally. Hence, the delay is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Permission is granted to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1-B-v / Nilesh Sathe on record. Necessary amendment be carried out, within a period of two weeks from today. The civil application stands disposed of. 7 It is made clear that if the amendment is not carried out within the stipulated period, then the applicants will require to deposit costs of Rs.2000/- with the Advocates Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co- 3 903 sa.529.92.odt operative Society, High Court Premises, Aurangabad. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3040 OF 2024 8 This application is filed for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and permission to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1-B / Sindhubai Sathe and appellant No.3 / Venkatrao Deshmukh on record. 9 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application. There is delay of 1737 and 673 days caused in filing this application. 10 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay is not deliberately caused. It is therefore, prayed to allow the application. 11 The learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 12 On perusal of the application, it appears that the delay is not deliberately caused. Therefore, to decide the lis finally on merits and in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of M. D. A. Chaudhary Vs. Kartar Chand and Ors., MANU/SC/0877/2025, the application deserves to be allowed, in the interest of justice, as the delay is not deliberately caused. 13 For the reasons stated in the application, the application deserves to be allowed as the delay is not caused deliberately and intentionally. Hence, the delay is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set 4 903 sa.529.92.odt aside. Permission is granted to bring the legal representatives of deceased appellant No.1-B / Sindhubai Sathe and appellant No.3 / Venkatrao Deshmukh on record. Necessary amendment be carried out, within a period of two weeks from today. The civil application stands disposed of. 14 It is made clear that if the amendment is not carried out within the stipulated period, then the applicants will require to deposit costs of Rs.2000/- with the Advocates Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co- operative Society, High Court Premises, Aurangabad. SECOND APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1992 15 The learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1-(a) / Sahebrao Deshmukh has died. She seeks time for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of appellant No.1-(a) on record. 16 The learned counsel for the appellants is also directed to take instructions as to which of the appellants or respondents have died. 17 List the second appeal on 1st September, 2026. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga