Sonali Mane 2-SA-584-2025.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2025 Devkumar Shankar Salve … Appellant Versus Latabai Ramesh Thombare and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Harshvardhan G. Khambete for Appellant. Mr. Vinayak R. Kumbhar i/b Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging Order dated 6 January 2025 passed by the District Judge-1, Yeola dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2023 filed seeking condonation of delay in filing a substantive appeal against Trial Court’s decree dated 12 January 2017. 2) By Order dated 16 April 2025, this Court has already framed substantial questions of law as under: I) Whether the reasons stated for condonation of delay in the application is disbelieved by the first appellate court on hyper technical ground and by recalculating number of days delay as pleaded by the appellant? ___Page No. 1 of 5 ___ 18 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.22 11:44:21 +0530 Sonali Mane 2-SA-584-2025.docx II) Whether the first appellate court erred in not correctly appreciating the pendency of the application for non removal of office objection by treating it as ground for refusal to condone delay? III) Whether the reasons recorded by the first appellate court in rejecting the application for condonation of delay would amount to taking hyper technical view by ignoring the well settled legal principles of having liberal approach in deciding application for condonation of delay? 3) I have heard Mr. Khambete, the learned counsel appearing through legal aid for the Appellant and Mr. Kumbhar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for parties. 4) So far as the first two questions framed by this Court are concerned, in my view, it is not really necessary to delve deeper into the manner of conduct of enquiry by the Appellate Court with regard to the events that have transpired after lodging of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2023. The issue ultimately boils down to the delay of 8 months and 25 days in filing the substantive appeal. It appears that the application for condonation of delay was filed by the Appellant in person and he pleaded following justification in the application: ३) अपेलंट यांना अपिपल दाखल करणेस अंदाजे ५ मपिने उशिर झाला आे. सदरील उशिर अपेलंट यांची आर्थिक परिरस्थि"ती खराब असले कारणाने अपिपल दाखल करण्यास लागणारा "टॅम्प खच), वकीलाची नेमणुक करण्याकामी लागणारी फी उपलब्ध नसलेने पिवलंब झालेला आे. (४) सदरील उशिर ा पिकरकोळ "वरुपाचा व योग्य कारणामुळे झालेला आे. (५) सदरील अज) मंजुर ोणे कायदेशिर गरजेचे आे. त्यामुळे मे. कोटा)समक्ष सत्य येणार आे. न्यायदानास मदतच ोणार आे. ___Page No. 2 of 5 ___ 18 September 2026 Sonali Mane 2-SA-584-2025.docx (६) जर सदरील अज) मंजुर न झालेस अपेलंट यांचेवर अन्याय ोऊन त्यांचे कायदेशिर अधिधकाराचे नन ोणार आे. त्याचे पैात न भरुन येणारे नुकसान ोणार आे. (७) सदरील अज) मंजुर के लेने सा.वाले यांचे कोणतेी नुकसान ोणार नाी. न्यायदानास मदत ोणार आे. 5) True it is that the application does not contain proper averments justifying delay, and that the application also erroneously computes the period of delay. However, it must be borne in mind that the application was drafted and filed personally by the Appellant, who was not assisted by services of a professional Advocate. However, the Appellant did plead the reason of non-availability of funds for purchase of stamp and appointment of an Advocate. This justification pleaded by the Appellant does not appear to be altogether false, in view of the fact that the present appeal is filed and prosecuted by an Advocate provided to the Appellant by legal aid. Therefore, the justification of non- availability of funds for payment of fees to the Advocate raised in the application for condonation of delay, appears to be genuine. 6) In my view, therefore, instead of going into too many technicalities about the conduct of the Appellant, the First Appellate Court ought to have concentrated on the correctness of justification pleaded for condonation of delay. It appears that, during the course of hearing of the application, the Appellant relied on Certificate dated 9 September 2017 in respect of his mother, who was Applicant No.2 before the First Appellate Court certifying that she was unwell from 2 January 2017 to 9 September 2017. Though this reason again is not specifically pleaded in the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the certificate is procured after filing of the application. ___Page No. 3 of 5 ___ 18 September 2026 Sonali Mane 2-SA-584-2025.docx Though, I am not fully convinced about sickness of Applicant No.2, who is Respondent No.10 herein, the reason of non-availability of funds for filing of the appeal appears to be genuine in the unique facts of the present case. 7) All three questions are accordingly answered in favour of the Appellant. The First Appellate Court has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the substantive appeal. Ordinarily, this Court would have awarded some costs to the original Plaintiff while condoning the delay. However, in the unique facts of the present case, it appears that the Appellant does not have sufficient funds even to engage services of an Advocate. Therefore, he may not be able to comply with a direction for payment of costs. In view of these special circumstances, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal without imposing any condition for payment of costs. 8) Appeal accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass to the following Order: i) Order dated 6 January 2025 passed by the District Judge-1, Yeola, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2023 is set aside. ii) The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. iii) The First Appellate Court shall proceed to register the appeal and decide the same on its own merits, without ___Page No. 4 of 5 ___ 18 September 2026 Sonali Mane 2-SA-584-2025.docx being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. 9) The Second Appeal is allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 10) Considering the fact that the decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff on 12 January 2017, the First Appellate Court shall accord due priority for decision of the appeal and shall make an endevor to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two years. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 5 of 5 ___ 18 September 2026