Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7350 (BOM)

RAVINDRA MURALIDHAR POTDAR v. SUREKHA PRABHAKAR DIXIT AND ORS.

IA/321/2026 · 2026-09-08

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 31.IA-321-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1714 OF 2026 Ravindra Muralidhar Potdar ...Applicant VERSUS Surekha Prabhakar Dixit and others ...Respondents Shri Siyal F. Magdum, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Nikhil N. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant seeks to condone delay of 10 years 11 months 24 days caused in preferring the first appeal. 2. It is submitted that against the judgment dated 30th April, 2024, Appeal from Order No. 731 of 2024 was preferred. It is observed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.02.2026 that the judgment and order dated 03.03.2015 passed in Misc. Application No. 201 of 2012 was susceptible to challenge in first appeal to be preferred in the High Court. It is further recorded that the District Court wrongly entertained R.C.A. No. 203 of 2017. Accordingly the order of the District Court was quashed 2026:BHC-KOL:8676 2 31.IA-321-2026.odt and liberty was given to the present applicant to prefer first appeal in this Court. It is further submitted that there are no mala-fides on the part of the applicant in preferring appeal belatedly. Applicant is entitled to get the benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Application is contested by the respondent No. 7. It is submitted that the applicant resorted to wrong remedy. The fault is attributable to him and no benefit can be given to him. 4. The averments of the application have not been traversed by the respondents. I do not infer any oblique motive on the part of the applicant in preferring appeal belatedly. The wrong course taken by the applicant is apparent from the observations recorded by the Coordinate Bench in order dated 10.02.2026 in Appeal from Order No. 731 of 2024. It is desirable to decide the appeal on merits. The applicant is said to have been prosecuting wrong remedy under bona fide impression. 5. For the reasons stated in the application, the interim application is allowed. The delay stands condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousands) to be paid to the Advocates Bar Association, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Office shall register the first appeal. Interim application stands disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Sept. 26