41-IA-30678-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30678 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30679 OF 2022 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 7947 OF 2022 Khashaba Bapu Sawant and Anr. ...Applicants Versus. Santosh Bhaskar Chavan and Anr. ...Respondent ----- Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, for the Applicants. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, for the Respondent No. 1. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 27th August, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. 2. By this Interim Application, the Applicants seek condonation of delay of two (2) years, two (2) months and hundred and one (101) days in filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.09.2019, passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 at Arjun 1 41-IA-30678-2022.doc Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 2014, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2014 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Vita in Regular Civil Suit No. 04 of 2009. 3. Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states that the delay of two (2) years, two (2) months and one hundred and one (101) days in filing the Second Appeal is on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic. He submits that the Applicants have given the reason for the delay in filing the Second Appeal in paragraph six (6) of this Application. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.1 4. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that the filing of the Application for condonation of delay is mala fide. He submits that the Applicants have attempted to mislead this Court by giving false reasons. He submits that the Application contains misrepresentations. He submits that the filing of this Application is intended to harass the Respondent. He submits that the Applicants are negligent. He submits that no case 1 Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 Arjun 2 41-IA-30678-2022.doc is made out for condonation of delay and therefore prays for dismissal of this Application with compensatory costs. 5. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates. 6. The period of limitation for filing the Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 2014 commenced on 19.09.2019 and expired in December 2019. The certified copy of the Judgment and Decree was not even applied for until 15.03.2021. The Applicant has not provided any reason for the delay in applying for the certified copy within the limitation prescribed for filing a second appeal. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, is therefore justified in his submission that the Applicants' intention in filing these proceedings appears to be mala fide. 7. The reason sought to be advanced by the Applicants for condonation of delay, i.e. the COVID-19 Pandemic, commenced on 15.03.2020, whereas the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 2014 is dated 19.09.2019. The period of Arjun 3 41-IA-30678-2022.doc limitation to file the Second Appeal in this case expired before 15.03.2020. Accordingly, the benefit of the decision in the Cognisance for Extension of Limitation (supra) is not available to the Applicants. 8. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no alternative but to accept the submission of Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, that the Applicants are guilty of inaction and negligence. 9. Applicants have failed to show any cause, let alone sufficient cause, to condone the enormous delay in filing the Second Appeal. Valuable rights have accrued in favour of the Respondents due to the Applicants' inaction. If this Application is entertained, the prejudice that will be caused to the Respondents would be greater than any prejudice that can be claimed to be caused to the Applicants. 10. In view of the above, even the benefit of a liberal approach ( see Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy2) cannot 2 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Arjun 4 41-IA-30678-2022.doc be extended to the case at hand. For the reasons stated above, this Application has no merit. 11. Interim Application No. 30678 of 2022 is dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of the Interim Application No. 30678 of 2022, nothing survives in Interim Application No. 30679 of 2022 and Second Appeal (ST) No. 7947 of 2022. The same are disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 5 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.08.31 11:02:49 +0530