1 cao182.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O. NO.182/2026 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.20366/2025 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.123/2015 (D) Shri Divakar Suryabhan Kinhekar ..V/s.. Narayan Raghunath Potbhare - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.D. Ramteke, Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Y.R. Kinkhede, Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 27.8.2026. The applicant has filed this application seeking condonation of delay of 1707 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal. 2. This Court, by order dated 23.10.2018, dismissed the appeal as no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a delay of 1707 days i.e. nearly eight years in filing the application for restoration of the appeal. The applicant has stated that the earlier Counsel did not inform him about the dismissal of the appeal. He came to know about the dismissal only when he received notice from the Executing Court in August 2025. Thereafter, he filed the present application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant opposed the application on the ground that the delay is of about eight years. It was submitted that the applicant had not remained in contact with his Counsel and had failed to remain vigilant in prosecuting the matter. 2026:BHC-NAG:11175 2 cao182.2026 Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.935-936 of 2021 (Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash) the learned Counsel submitted that merely blaming the Counsel cannot be accepted as a sufficient explanation for such a long delay. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the record. 6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant had failed to comply with the order passed by this Court, though an opportunity had been granted to him to do so. Consequently, this Court dismissed the appeal. On the said date, the learned Counsel for the applicant was also not present. Therefore, before the appeal could be admitted, it was dismissed for non-appearance. 7. Considering the facts of the case, the applicant was not vigilant in prosecuting the matter. The delay of 1707 days i.e. nearly eight years is inordinate. Further, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the explanation that the applicant was not informed by his earlier Counsel cannot be accepted as sufficient justification for condoning such an inordinate delay. 8. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case for condonation of delay. Hence, the application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly. (MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 27/08/2026 18:31:48