40-WP-13044-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13044 OF 2022 Mangesh Sudam Beldare … Petitioner Vs. Ramdas Chiman Padale and Others … Respondents Mr. Prasad Keluskar i/b. Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. S. C. Wakankar (through VC) for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 27th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the order passed by the district court rejecting his application for condonation of delay in filing a miscellaneous civil appeal to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for interim injunction. 2. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are served and represented through advocate. Name of respondent no. 4 is deleted as he has expired. As per office remarks remaining respondents are served, however none appear for the remaining respondents. 1/5 rrpillai VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2025.12.06 16:15:33 +0530 40-WP-13044-2022.docx 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court on 11th February 2019. The appeal was preferred before the district court along with an application for condonation of delay of 389 days excluding the period of exemption during covid-19 pandemic. The plaintiff contended that he is the only earning member of the family and was required to look after his agricultural land. He was unwell in the intervening period and thus was unable to take immediate steps for filing appeal. To support his submissions the plaintiff relied upon a medical certificate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is rejected on hyper technical grounds without considering the reasons in the application regarding his illness and the difficulty faced being the only earning member of his family. He submits that the impugned order does not appreciate the reasons mentioned in his application for condonation of delay. He therefore submits that in view of the reasons given for delay condonation the plaintiff’s application be allowed and he be granted an opportunity to argue his appeal on merits. 2/5 40-WP-13044-2022.docx 5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 support the impugned order. He submits that vague reasons are given for seeking condonation of a huge delay of 389 days. He therefore submits that for want of sufficient grounds, the district court has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay, by considering the opposition by the defendants. 6. I have perused the papers of the application. The plaintiff has given detailed reasons in the application for condonation of delay for not approaching the court within time. In his application, the applicant has also raised ground that he was suffering from hypertension and hyperglycemia (diabetes) and was hospitalised for the treatment. The plaintiff has therefore contended that due to his illness he was unable to take immediate steps to file appeal within time. The supporting medical reports were also produced on record and are also placed on record in this writ petition. Though learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that a reply was filed in the district Court to oppose the application for delay condonation, the endorsement on the application for delay condonation records that no say was 3/5 40-WP-13044-2022.docx filed to oppose the application. 7. Considering the medical reports and the contents in the application, I see no reason to disbelieve the grounds raised in the application. The contentions regarding the plaintiffs illness and supporting medical documents are not disputed by the defendants by filing any affidavit-in-reply. The district court has refused to accept the ground of medical illness by observing that the medical certificate would not show that the plaintiff was bedridden. Such observations while considering the application for delay condonation would amount to taking hyper technical view without properly appreciating the documents and contents of the application. The learned Judge disbelieves the ground of illness by recording that the plaintiff was able to do his routine activities. But the learned Judge ignored the particulars of the medical reports which shows that the plaintiff was covid positive and was also hospitalised. 8. Considering the reasons of illness and the supporting medical evidence, the applicant (plaintiff) would be entitled to proceed with his appeal on merits. The reasons in the application and the supporting evidence are sufficient to 4/5 40-WP-13044-2022.docx condone the delay. The impugned order records reasons to refuse to condone delay, on hyper technical grounds. This is a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The petition is therefore allowed by passing the following order : (i) The impugned order dated 23rd March 2022 passed by the District Judge-13 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 484 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 484 of 2021 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c). (iii) The concerned court shall issue directions for registering the appeal and the appeal shall be decided on merits. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 5/5