KANCHAN W/O SANJAY GUPTA v. MANOJ SHANKARLAL GUPTA AND ORS
WP/12283/2018 · 2026-09-30
Civil Appealbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13202 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 13202 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Megha 23_wp_12283_2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12283 OF 2018 Kanchan W/o Sanjay Gupta ...Petitioner V/s. Manoj Shankarlal Gupta and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Vrushal N. Gupta for the Petitioner. Mr. P.V. Nelson-Rajan, APP for Respondent-State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 12 July 2018 passed by the learned District Judge-6, Thane, allowing Civil Misc. Application No.479 of 2013 and condoning the delay in filing Civil Appeal challenging the decree dated 12 January 2011 passed in Special Civil Suit No.242 of 2001. 2) I have heard Mr. Gupta, the learned cousnel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Nelson-Rajan, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No.
1 of
2 30 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39940
Megha 23_wp_12283_2018 3) No doubt delay in filing the Appeal is slightly inordinate in the present case i.e. 1053 days. However, it appears that the contesting Respondets produced some material to suggest ill-health of Applicant No.2, who was apparently hospitalised and was required to take medical treatement from time to time. The Appellate Court has applied its mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and has passed a detailed order running into 16 pages while condoning the delay in filing the Civil Appeal. Considering the fact that there was justification pleaded for condonation of delay and that the Appellate Court has exercised discretion in condoning the delay, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 4) At this stage, Mr. Gupta submits that the Applicants before the District Court have not deposited costs of Rs.15,000/- imposed vide order dated 12 July 2018. If this is the case, the Applicants would suffer consequences thereof. This order shall not be treated as extension of time for deposit of amount of costs awarded by the District Court. 5) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No.
2 of
2 30 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 11:21:47