Neeta Sawant 5-IA-8697-2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8697 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO. 9336 OF 2024 Allauddin Kadir Kardekar & Ors. ...Applicants/ Appellants : Versus : Hajimaya Ismail Kardekar ...Respondent Mr. Balasaheb G. Ligade, for the Applicants. Mr. Sachin Daswadikar, for the Respondent. CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Interim Application seeks condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the Second Appeal. 2) I have heard Mr. Ligade, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants Appellants and Mr. Daswadikar, for the Respondent and / have considered the submissions canvassed by them. PAGE NO. 1 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 5-IA-8697-2024.docx 3) For seeking condonation of delay of 440 days, the Applicants have pleaded following justification in paras-3 to 5 of the application : 3. The Applicants state that Applicants applied for the certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Decree on 10.01.2023 and the same was ready and delivered on 12.01.2023. 4. The Applicants state that the Applicants were in financial problems and due to which they were not able to engage an advocate to file the Second Appeal or even to seek a consultation regarding the same. Thereafter in January 2023 the Applicants approached Mrs. Shivani Samel thereby appointing her to file the present Second Appeal however, in the end of the April the office of the said Advocate went under renovation and due to which the papers of the present case were misplaced and it took some time for the Applicants to construct another brief for the Advocate. 5. Applicants submit that undersigned advocate immediacy prepared the present both Interim Applications and even affirmed on 18.10.2023 itself, however for formulating the question of law in the Second Appeal sufficient all the papers were not with the undersigned advocate. Therefore again delay caused in filing present Second Appeal. 4) Thus, the pleaded justification is that the earlier advocate was approached by the Applicants in January 2023 but on account of renovation work in her office, papers were misplaced and it took some time for the Applicants to reconstruct the papers for filing Appeal. However, it appears that the papers are not reconstructed in reality and the very same Certified Copy which was secured by the Applicants on 12 January 2023 is ultimately filed alognwith the Appeal. Therefore, the reason pleaded in para-4 of the application does not appear to be factually correct. PAGE NO. 2 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 5-IA-8697-2024.docx 5) The Applicants have further pleaded in para-5 of the application that they changed the advocate and the new advocate drafted the Interim Application and that the same was affirmed on 18 October 2023. It does appear that the present application has been affirmed on 18 October 2023. However, the same has been filed alongwith the Memo of Appeal on 27 March 2023. Thus, even after affirmation application, the Applicants took more than 5 months in filing the same. There is no justification for this delay. 6) Considering the above position, in my view, the Applicants have failed to plead and establish a reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing Appeal. No doubt, the Court needs to adopt a reasonable and liberal approach in considering the question of condonation of delay. However, in the present case, the delay is inordinately long i.e. 440 days. Such inordinate delay ought to have been justified by pleading proper explanation. On the other hand, the explanation pleaded in the application shows a complete casual and negligent approach on the part of the Applicants. I am therefore not inclined to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. The Interim Application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Second Appeal is also dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.] PAGE NO. 3 of 3 Wednesday, 30 September 2026