k 1/4 23 sa 719.17 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017 Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors. ....Appellants V/S Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr. ....Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1420 OF 2017 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017 Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors. ....Applicants V/S Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr. ....Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.29674 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017 Jagannath Dhodha Pawar ....Applicant V/S Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr. ....Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.719 OF 2017 Kevalbai Jagannath Pawar & Ors. ....Applicants V/S Shankar Ragho Bachhav & Anr. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Vikas B. Mourya i/b Mr. Mahendra N. Sandhyanshiv for the Appellants/Applicants. katkam Page No. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AS:36124 k 2/4 23 sa 719.17 as.doc Mr. Pratik Sabrad i/b Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad with Ms. Neha Parte for Respondents. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal challenges order dated 28 June 2016 passed by the District Judge, Malegaon, rejecting Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.14 of 2015 filed for the purpose of condonation of delay of 610 days in filing the Appeal against ex-parte decree dated 12 June 2013. 2. I have heard Mr. Mourya, the learned counsel appearing for Appellants and Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 3. Appellants are Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.206 of 2012 filed by the Plaintiff for seeking declaration of ownership and injunction against the Defendants. Despite being duly served Defendants failed to appear in the Suit. The Suit proceeded ex-parte. The Trial Court went through registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff in pursuance of execution of a decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.95 of 2006. After being satisfied that Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property the Trial Court also issued consequential injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the Defendants from causing any obstruction to Plaintiff using the suit land. 4. It appears that Defendants acquired knowledge of the execution proceedings and appeared therein on 13 July 2013 and filed Application katkam Page No. 2 of 4 k 3/4 23 sa 719.17 as.doc under Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). Thus, Defendants participated in the execution proceedings and attempted to obstruct execution of the decree. However, they did not take contemporaneous steps for challenging the decree of the Trial Court by filing the Appeal. The Appeal was filed on 5 February 2015 after delay of 610 days. More importantly Defendants did not plead any justifiable reasons for condonation of such inordinate delay. The plea of Defendant No.1 suffering from cancer is found to be inconsequential since it has come in evidence that she had recovered in the year 2011 itself. The Appellate Court has rightly held that no justifiable cause is pleaded or demonstrated by the Defendants for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, no practical purpose would be served in permitting the Appellants to prosecute the Appeal on merits in view of the fact that there is no Written Statement filed by them in the Suit and Plaintiff is armed with a registered Sale Deed executed in his name. In any case, if the Appellants were serious enough in challenging the decree of the Trial Court, they ought to have contemporaneously filed the Appeal after appearing in execution proceedings on 13 July 2013. If the ailment and other reason did not come in the way of Defendants in appearing and defending the execution proceedings, it is incomprehensible as to how the said difficulties can selectively come in the way of filing of Appeal. The Application for condonation of delay is rightly rejected by the Appellate Court. No substantial question of law is involved and there is no interference warranted in the order passed by the learned District Judge. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. katkam Page No. 3 of 4 k 4/4 23 sa 719.17 as.doc 5. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing would survive in the Civil Applications and Interim Application and the same are accordingly disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 4 of 4 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 11:38:21