1 908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 25893 OF 2025 Navanath Vitthal Atakar (Mali) ….Applicant VERSUS Bitu Tukaram Atakar (Mali) and Ors. ....Respondents ---- Mr. Vijay Killedar, for Applicant. Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni a/w Adv. Nakul Vivek Shukla, for Respondent No.1. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026. ORDER. 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Killedar, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1. 2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 387 days in filing the Second Appeal against the Order dated 22nd March, 2024, passed by the District Judge-1, Barshi (“District Court”), in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023. In that Application, the District Court rejected the request made by the Applicants to condone the delay of six (6) years in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.08.17 10:28:40 +0530 2 908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC and Decree dated 16th September, 2017, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Madha (“Trial Court”), in Regular Civil Suit No.248 of 2006. 3. Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Order dated 22nd March, 2024, passed by the District Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023 was initially challenged by the Applicants before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4180 of 2025 on 26th April, 2024. On 7th April, 2025, the Applicant, having realised that the appropriate remedy for challenging the Order dated 22nd March, 2024 was a Second Appeal, withdrew Writ Petition No.4180 of 2025. He submits that thereafter, the proposed Second Appeal, along with this Application seeking condonation of delay, was filed on 28th July, 2025. He, therefore, seeks condonation of delay. 4. Though I am conscious that the merits of the main matter need not be considered at the stage of adjudication of the application for condonation of delay, as the subject matter of the proposed Second Appeal also involves a request for condonation of delay, Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, with the consent of Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, was called upon to address the Court and show the sufficient cause pleaded in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023 for condoning a delay of about six (6) years in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 248 of 2006. Shantanu S. Dhudum 3 908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC 5. Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, by referring to paragraph No.7 of the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.102 of 2023, submits that the Applicant was suffering from a serious illness. To clarify, he states that the Applicant had been suffering from hypertension and chest pain for several years. He submits that the said illness is the cause for the delay of six (6) years in filing a Regular Civil Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 248 of 2006. 6. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that apart from the Applicant's failure to show any sufficient cause, in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 is devoid of merit and substance and is, in fact, malafide. He submits that the Applicant's intention is to cause harassment by filing frivolous applications in respect of a lis that has long attained finality. He further submits that no cause has been shown that can be treated as sufficient cause for the delay of six (6) years in the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023. He further submits that the District Court has rightly rejected the said Application. 7. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that in this Application, there is no reason or explanation, worthy of the cause, for the period from 7th April 2025 to 28th July 2025. He therefore prays for the dismissal of this Application with compensatory costs. Shantanu S. Dhudum 4 908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC 8. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay of six (6) years in filing the Appeal before the District Court was filed in the year 2023. 10. The statements in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 indicate that the Applicant suffered from hypertension and chest pain up to the year 2019. No explanation is offered for the period from 2019 to 2023 (i.e., the date of filing of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023). When asked to point out the statements in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 102 of 2023 explaining the reasons for the delay during the period from 2019 to 2023, Mr. Vijay Kiledar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, was unable to show any explanation. 11. Reverting to this Application for condonation of delay in filing the Second Appeal before this Court, this Application is silent for not filing the Second Appeal from 7th April, 2025 (i.e. the date of withdrawal of Writ Petition No.4180 of 2025) till 28th July, 2025 (i.e. the date on which the present Application was filed). Again, Mr. Vijay Kildar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, had no explanation to offer for the said period. Shantanu S. Dhudum 5 908-IA-216-2026(C).DOC 12. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, has strenuously urged that the delay, apart from being deliberate and unexplained, is malafide. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Nafar Academy1, has laid down the principles governing the consideration of Applications seeking condonation of delay. 14. Given the vague contents of this Application, I am unable to adopt the normal liberal approach a Court takes while considering an Application for condonation of delay. This Application is bereft of any satisfactory explanation, let alone any sufficient cause. No case for indulgence is, therefore, made out. 15. Interim Application No.216 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. 16. In view of the dismissal of the Interim Application, the accompanying Second Appeal (Stamp) No.25893 of 2025 also stands dismissed. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) 1(2013) 12 SCC 649 Shantanu S. Dhudum