1 15. CAS 435.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.4258 OF 2025 Sumedh S. Khobragade Vs. Vishwambharnath M. Tiwari Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. C. G. Barapatre, Advocate for applicant/appellant. Mr. D. G. Paunikar, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18.08.2026. . The appellant - applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 712 days in filing the appeal. The respondent - plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery, which was decreed against the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were confirmed. 2. It is stated in the present application that after filing of appeal, the appellant was not in contact with his advocate. According to him, his advocate has informed him that his personal presence or attendance before the Appellate Court is not required and that he would be informed whenever his presence was necessary, however the counsel for appellant has not informed about the judgment for two years and he came to know about the 2 15. CAS 435.2025.odt dismissal of the appeal when he received show cause notice from the Executing Court, and thereafter, he has filed the present second appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has stated that as the appeal was filed in the year 2017, and thereafter, COVID-19 pandemic intervened. During that period, the applicant had lost contact with his advocate and was not informed by the advocate that the appeal is dismissed, and therefore, the delay has been caused. He further states that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and prayed that the same be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the money decree was in favour of the respondent and the reason given by the applicant is not convincing. He submitted that the applicant was not diligent and for two years, he had not taken any efforts to know about the status of the appeal. As the reason was not sufficient, he prayed to reject the application. 5. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 6. The money decree is passed against the applicant. There is delay of 712 days in filing this appeal. The reason given is vague only because he was not aware and was not informed by his advocate cannot be considered a sufficient reason for the delay, as the appeal was filed by the applicant and it was money decree. The 3 15. CAS 435.2025.odt appellant waited until he received notice in the execution proceedings, and thereafter, filed the present application for condonation of delay. Though the applicant has taken the ground that during the period of COVID-19, he was not in contact with his advocate, the judgment was passed in the year 2022. Thus, the said period was not the COVID-19 period, and thereafter, for two years, the applicant did not make any enquiry regarding status of the appeal. Such conduct cannot be considered as diligent. 7. Hence, the reason stated by the applicant is not sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application is rejected. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...