56-IA-20-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2026 IN REVIEW PETITION IN CRA (ST) NO. 28877 OF 2025 Santosh Vilasrao Yadav and Anr. ...Applicants Versus. Shailendra Vilasrao Yadav And Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Kalpesh Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware a/w Shubham Dhoble, Advocate for the Respondents. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 3rd September, 2026. Oral Order : 1. Heard, Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware, learned Advocate for the Respondents. 2. Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, state that the contest in this Interim Application, as well as the accompanying Review, is between the Applicants and Arjun 1 56-IA-20-2026.doc the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They submit that the other Respondents are formal parties and therefore request that notice on them be dispensed with. They further request that this Application be considered after hearing the Applicants and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the joint request of Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Application is taken up for disposal. 3. By this Application, the Applicants seek condonation of delay of 62 days in filing a Review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the Order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 322 of 2024. 4. Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondents, states that the reasons for the delay are set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of this Application. 5. Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware, learned Advocate for the Respondents (original Plaintiffs) / Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Revision Application No. 322 of 2024, submits that the Arjun 2 56-IA-20-2026.doc reasons do not constitute any cause for condonation of delay. 6. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates. 7. There are neither any allegations of malafides nor any contentions raised on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alleging malafides against the Applicants. Similarly, no material on record indicates that the Applicants would have benefited from the delay in filing the Review. 8. In view of the unrebutted statements in paragraph No. 12 of this Application, the cause shown in this application being sufficient cause and guided by the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 21, of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1, subject to the Applicants paying costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Application is allowed. Payment of costs is a condition precedent. 9. Mr. Kalpesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states 1 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Arjun 3 56-IA-20-2026.doc that the Applicants shall pay the cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 on or before 17.09.2026. 10. If the Applicants pay the cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on or before 17.09.2026 and produce a receipt or acknowledgement to that effect before the Registry of this Court, the accompanying Review Application be registered. If the cost remains unpaid till 17.09.2026, this Application shall stand dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the Applicants. 11. Interim Application No. 20 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 4 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.09.07 10:34:46 +0530