1 sa288.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.288/2026 Devidas S/o Laxmiprasad Lachuriya ..V/s.. Premchand S/o Hemchand Jain and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.R. Chakole, Counsel for the appellant. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13.10.2026. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the application for condonation of delay of 632 days in filing the appeal was rejected. 3. The appellant, who was the original plaintiff, had filed a suit for specific performance. The said suit was dismissed. According to the appellant, there was a delay in filing the appeal against the said judgment and decree. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, due to the serious illness of his close family members, the appellant could not file the appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the delay of 632 days was neither intentional nor deliberate. 5. The appellant has stated that his real uncle was suffering from a serious illness and was hospitalized. Thereafter, he died. He was 82 years old, and the appellant was required to take care of him. Thereafter, the appellant’s brother-in-law was suffering from cancer 2026:BHC-NAG:13878 2 sa288.2026 and was hospitalized from April to November 2024. The appellant was also required to take care of him. Thereafter, the appellant’s real brother suffered from heart disease and remained hospitalized for some days. His sister-in-law was also suffering from heart disease, and the appellant had to take care of her as well. It is submitted that, as the appellant was attending to his family members who were suffering from serious illness, he could not contact his Counsel and take necessary steps for filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate. The appellant submits that he was helpless due to these circumstances and was required to attend to his seriously ill family members. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Appellate Court has not properly considered these facts and has wrongly rejected the application for condonation of delay. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another, (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay. The following principles have also been laid down for considering such an application:- “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is 3 sa288.2026 condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” In support of his submission that the Appellate Court though considered the documents produced by the appellant as genuine has rejected the application, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ummer Vs. Pottengal Subida and others, (2018) 15 SCC 127. In the said judgment, it has been observed that when the High Court does not dispute the genuineness of the medical documents produced by the appellant in support of the reasons stated for the delay, the application for 4 sa288.2026 condonation of delay should not be rejected and a liberal approach can be adopted. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Narayan D. Gorad Vs. Shivaji S. Pasalkar and others, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5308, wherein the delay was condoned considering the illness of the appellant’s relatives. In Janu Dhumade Vs. Sakharam Dhaktu Gurav and others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1602, this Court has observed that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay. 7. Though all the respondents have been served, none has appeared for them. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. The delay is of 632 days. The appellant has stated that the delay was caused due to the illness of his different relatives. However, he has not stated that there was no other person available to take care of them or that he was the only person who could attend to them. Further, there was a time gap between the illnesses of some of the relatives, during which the appellant could have contacted his Counsel and taken steps to file the appeal. 10. It is a settled principle that it is necessary to explain the delay day by day. However, the appellant has given only vague reasons regarding the illness of different relatives, including his brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Merely because these relatives were residing in Nagpur 5 sa288.2026 and the appellant was also residing in Nagpur, the appellant cannot take advantage of these circumstances to seek condonation of such a long delay. 11. In Janu Dhumade (supra), this Court considered the illness of a relative as a reason for condoning the delay. However, in that case, the relative was the father of the appellant. The appellant had given a power of attorney to his daughter, who was taking care of her ailing father. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of that case, the said judgment does not help the appellant. 12. The appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of 1 year, 8 months and 22 days. The reasons given by the appellant are not sufficient to condone such a long delay. Therefore, this is not a fit case for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/10/2026 16:41:42