PANNALAL KALLUPRASAD NIRMAL v. RAJKUMARI RAMPYARE NIRMAL
IA/13850/2025 · 2026-09-01
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4176 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4176 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
6 IA-13850-25.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13850 OF 2025 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 30131 OF 2025
Pannalal Kalluprasad Nirmal ..Applicant Versus Rajkumari Rampyare Nirmal & ors. …Respondents Ms. Poonam K Pal, i/b Mr. Sachin Hande, for the Applicant. Mr. B K Bali a/w Ms. Veena Nair i/b Bali Associates, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM :
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 01st September 2026 P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Pal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Bali, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the Civil Revision Application against a judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan in RCS No.172/2008.
3. It appears that, against the said judgment and decree, the applicant had inadvertently filed a proceeding before the District Court in the nature of an appeal with an application for condonation of delay of 23 days. When it was realized that, SAINATH, PA 1/3
6 IA-13850-25.DOC against an order passed by the Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an appeal is not maintainable, an application was filed before the District Judge, seeking permission to withdraw the application and file an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum.
4. By an order dated 10th January, 2025, the learned District Judge permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to file an appropriate proceeding.
5. It appears that, the applicant had moved the District Court under a wrong impression that, an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was maintainable before the District Court. As the said proceeding was prosecuted in good faith under an incorrect impression about the maintainability of the appeal, and to advance the cause of substantive justice, this Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the revision application.
6. Hence, the following order :- : : O R D E R : : (i) The Interim Application stands allowed. (ii) The delay in filing the Civil Revision Application stands condoned.
SAINATH, PA 2/3
6 IA-13850-25.DOC (iii) The Civil Revision Application be listed for admission as a fresh matter on 07th September,
2026.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 3/3