66-WP-687-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 687 OF 2026 Balawant Akoba Sonawane Through LRs. & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Kiran Dilip Mane & Anr. … Respondents …………. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad a/w Samrat Hajare for the Petitioners. Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar (through VC) a/w Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture, Ritesh Raut, A.M. Mane for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides finally. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2021, rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 3 years 6 months and 15 days in setting aside abatement of the appeal. 3. The petitioners are the original defendants who suffered decree on 26.03.2015 in R.C.S. No. 195 of 2013 instituted by the respondents for possession. Being aggrieved, Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2015 was preferred by him. It was declared to be abated as no steps were taken to bring heirs of deceased appellant – petitioner on record in time. ZIP 1 of 5 66-WP-687-2026.doc Application for setting aside order of abatement passed on 11.09.2017 was preferred along with application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Court refused to condone the delay by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the substantive right of the petitioners is at stake in R.C.A. No. 119 of 2015. The Appellate Court adopted hyper technical approach in refusing to condone the delay. It is submitted that one opportunity needs to be given to the petitioners. The cogent reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not properly appreciated. It is submitted that petitioners and the legal heirs were not aware of the order passed on 11.09.2017 and they be given one opportunity to contest the matter on merits by quashing the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that petitioner – Balawant did not contest the suit. He and his heirs are trespassers. They are well aware of the progress and the status of the regular civil appeal. My attention is adverted to the vital admissions given by their witness in the cross-examination. It is submitted that respondents suffered great hardship as the premises in question was required. It is submitted that the delay is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. ZIP 2 of 5 66-WP-687-2026.doc 6. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The respondents had filed R.C.S. No. 195 of 2013 for possession of the house property from the petitioner – deceased Balawant. It was contended that he was in arrears of rent since November - 2012, which was Rs.2,500/- per month. The petitioner had appeared in the trial Court by engaging a lawyer on 23.07.2013, who did not file written statement. The suit was ordered to proceed ex parte. The petitioner failed to file pleadings and adduce evidence before the trial Court. After considering the oral evidence, it was categorically observed that the suit premises was required by the plaintiff as they were of marriageable age and had no accommodation and the suit was decreed on 26.03.2015. Being aggrieved R.C.A. No.119 of 2015 was filed which was abated on 11.09.2017. 7. The petitioners submitted application for condonation of delay on 25.03.2021. The delay of 3 years, 6 months and 15 days was sought to be condoned mainly on the ground that petitioner late Balwant was looking after the proceeding and he died on 23.09.2015. His heirs were not aware of the adverse orders passed in the matter. The hardship suffered by the heirs and their inability was pressed into service. They are alleged to have received the knowledge in the execution. Application is contested by the respondent. Petitioner adduced oral evidence of two witnesses. ZIP 3 of 5 66-WP-687-2026.doc Petitioner No. 8 Umesh Sonawane was cross-examined. 8. I have gone through the cross-examination. It is admitted by the witness that his sister Shubhangi used to accompany deceased father. It is further admitted that sister used to accompany father for the work of appeal. He could not produce any material to show illness and hospitalization of his father. I find that the admissions given by the witness are vital. It cannot be countenanced that petitioners, who are the heirs of original defendant, were unaware of the proceedings of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. The oral evidence has been rightly appreciated by the Court below. The lapses are apparent on the part of the petitioner. In impugned order, Appellate Court has rightly dealt with the material and arrived at reasonable conclusion. The entire blame cannot be put on the lawyer who is representing the party. Clients also owe duty to be in touch with the lawyer. 9. There is no dispute that respondents are the owners of the suit premises. The original defendant and after his demise the petitioners are occupying it without paying any rent. They are the trespassers. The Trial Court appreciated hardship caused to the respondents for not getting possession of the suit premises. The same is perpetuated till this date. Petitioners are enjoying the possession illegally. The lapses on their part ZIP 4 of 5 66-WP-687-2026.doc are with oblique motive to deprive the lawful owners from the fruits of the decree. Petitioners are not entitled to any equity. I am of the considered view that they are dishonest. No case is made out to condone the delay. The view taken by the Trial Court needs to be upheld. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) 10. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the protection for six (06) weeks. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the request. 12. As the protection is in operation, the same shall be extended for a period of four (04) weeks, which shall stand vacated automatically without further reference to the Court thereafter. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) ZIP 5 of 5