1 / 3 15-cas 296-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.296 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 23344 OF 2023 Purushottam Marotrao Nikure and anr. Vs. Pramod Maroti Nikure and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Rudra Mulaokar counsel h/f Mr. O.R.Deshpande, counsel for the Appellants. Mr.R.R.Muddalwar counsel h/f Mr.A.M. Chandekar, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 20/08/2026 1. The applicants have filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 71 days. It is submitted that the delay has occurred due to technical difficulties faced while filing the application online. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the non- applicants has opposed the application, submitting that the applicants have not placed on record any document to substantiate the alleged technical difficulties faced by them while filing the application online. It is, therefore, submitted that the reason assigned for the delay is not satisfactory. Kavita 2 / 3 15-cas 296-26 Hence, the learned counsel for the non-applicants prays for rejection of the application. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Considering the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 5. The Registry is directed to register the appeal. 6. Civil application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 23344 OF 2023 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff, who had filed a suit for partition, which was partly decreed by the Trial Court. The defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal on the proposed substantial questions of law, which are as under:- (i) Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court committed an error while holding that the suit property was self-acquired in hands of Maroti, specifically in light of the admitted fact that he inherited it from his father Kawaduji, who died intestate? (ii) Whether the Ld. Lower Appellate Court erred in law while interpreting the provisions of Kavita 3 / 3 15-cas 296-26 Hindu Law, especially Clause 221, 228 etc. of Mulla's Hindu Law when it held that suit property was self-acquired property in the hands of Maroti? 2. Issue notice to the respondents on the above, mentioned substantial questions of law, returnable on 16/09/2026. 3. Learned counsel Mr.R.R.Muddalwar waives the service of notice for the respondents. 4. Call for R and P. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 11:49:13