1 / 3 24-cas 757-25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 757 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 17076 OF 2025 Janardhan Gulabrao Evnathe Vs.Tushar Jagdish Nayase ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.D.M.Surjuse, counsel for the Applicant. Mr.Prashad Ashok Dharaskar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 09/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 637 days in filing the appeal. 3. The reason stated by the applicant is that he is a rustic person residing in a remote area of Wardha. The advocate, who was conducting the matter had not informed him about the judgment until 2025. The applicant came to know about the judgment only in March 2025. Thereafter, it took some time to approach an advocate for filing the appeal before this Court. 4. The advocate whom the applicant approached was not available as he had gone to Ratnagiri to attend Varsh Shradha of his in-law. After the vacations, the said advocate Kavita 2026:BHC-NAG:12074 2 / 3 24-cas 757-25 prepared the appeal, which has been filed along with the present application for condonation of delay. 5. Considering the reasons stated in the application, the applicant submits that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, seeks condonation of the delay of 637 days. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application, contending that the reasons stated therein are not sufficient to condone the delay. It is submitted that the delay is not of 637 days, as stated by the applicant, but is in fact 692 days. It is further submitted that the applicant/appellant filed the present appeal along with the application for condonation of delay only after initiation of the execution proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the explanation furnished by the applicant is not convincing and does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application. 8. Heard both the sides. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and ors. reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387, wherein, in para 17, it is observed that generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned. In the interest of justice, where Kavita 3 / 3 24-cas 757-25 there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. 10. After going through the reasons stated by the applicant, it appears that the applicant was not vigilant in pursuing the matter. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court was pronounced on 28.07.2023; however, the applicant was informed about the same by his advocate only on 21.04.2025. Thereafter, the applicant applied for the certified copies and approached the advocate for taking further steps. 11. The explanation furnished by the applicant is not convincing. There is no sufficient explanation demonstrating due diligence on the part of the applicant in taking steps for filing the appeal. The applicant has not taken reasonable efforts to pursue the matter within the prescribed period. The reasons assigned for the delay are, therefore, not sufficient to constitute sufficient cause for condoning such a long delay. 12. Hence, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/09/2026 15:23:37