DR. YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKH versus RAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 08-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1125
1125
DR. YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKH
v.
RAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE
(Civil Appeal No. 6315 of 2021)
OCTOBER 08, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Delay/latches: Condonation of delay of 650 days in filing
appeal against the ex parte decree – Suit for specific performance
of contract by respondent partly decreed exparte and recovery of
Rs.61,000 ordered while dismissing relief for specific performance
– Respondent filed appeal before High Court – Appellant was duly
served and appeared in the said matter through his counsel –
However, due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District
Court, appeal stood transferred to District Court from High Court
and fresh notice issued to appellant through paper publication –
Appellant did not appear and District Court proceeding ex parte
allowed appeal and granted specific performance in favour of
respondent – Appellant filed appeal before High Court – There was
delay of 650 days in filing appeal – His plea of non service of
notice due to change of address, not accepted by High Court –
High Court dismissed appeal as time barred holding that sufficient
cause for delay was not established – On appeal, held: In this case,
appellant had produced the documents including voters list/aadhar
card showing his change of address from Amalner to Nashik – On
the other hand, the respondent had produced the voters’ list of
Amalner itself contending that the name of appellant was still
existing – In such a situation, without any enquiry and without
arriving at a finding disbelieving the explanation of the appellant,
High Court was not justified in rejecting application for condonation
of delay – Order of High Court set aside – High Court to take up
second appeal and dispose it of expeditiously.
Disposing of appeal, the Court
HELD: 1 In this case, the appellant had also produced the
documents including voters list/aadhar card showing his change
of address from Amalner to Nashik. On the other hand, the
respondent had produced the voters’ list of Amalner itself
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
contending that the name of appellant is still existing. However,
in such a situation without any enquiry and without arriving at a
finding disbelieving the explanation of the appellant, the High
Court was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation
of delay. [Para 14][1130-B-C]
2. As per the judgment of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom,
the Court, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in
respect of matters pending at the appellate stage, advocates
usually inform the litigants who are to be in contact. Sometimes,
they assure their clients that they will give information to them
as and when matter would be ripe for hearing. Thus, the High
Court erred in dismissing the second appeal solely on the ground
of limitation. A second appeal lies to the High Court if the High
Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved.
The High Court shall take up the second appeal for admission as
expeditiously as possible. [Paras 15, 16][1130-C-F]
Perumon Bhagvathyu Devaswom Perinadu Village v.
Bhargavi Amma (dead) by LRS and Others (2008) 8
SCC 321:[2008] 11 SCR 1  – relied on. 
Mohan v. R. Madhu 2019 (16) SCALE 602; Rohin Thapa
v. Rohit Dora (2019) 7 SCC 359 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 11 SCR 1
relied on
Para 8
2019 (16) SCALE  602
referred to
Para 9
(2019) 7 SCC 359
referred to
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6315 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Civil Application
No.12143 of 2017 in Second Appeal (ST) No.31286 of 2017.
Vivek Solshe, Varun Solshe, Vijay Khamkar, Anjani Kumar Jha,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed on 7.8.2018 by
the High Court of judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad on Civil
Application No. 12143 of 2017 in Second Appeal (ST) No. 31286 of
2017 dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay and the
appeal as barred by limitation.
3. The facts leading to file this appeal are that a suit for specific
performance of the contract was filed by the respondent against the
appellant based on an agreement to sell dated 18.2.1998 with respect to
an agricultural l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.