VISHNU GANPAT TAYSHETE v. ASHOK GANPAT TAYSHETE AND ORS
Condonation of Delay - Rejection of Application for 1938-Day Delay Due to Lack of Documentary Evidence and Attempt to Frustrate Execution Proceedings.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:13288
Decision Date: 17-03-2026
List of Laws
The Limitation Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Law of Condonation of Delay
- Facts: The applicant, Vishnu Ganpat Tayshete, sought to file a first appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai on 27 July 2016. Under the applicable law, the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days. However, the applicant filed the appeal only on 18 December 2021, resulting in a significant delay of 1938 days (over five years). The applicant attributed this delay to a paralytic attack suffered in 2012, financial difficulties, old age, and alleged negligence or lack of communication by his previous legal counsel. He further claimed that he was only prompted to act once respondent no. 1 initiated execution proceedings against him.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as an interim application for the condonation of delay in filing a first appeal.
- Issue: Whether the applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" to justify the exercise of the court's discretionary power to condone a delay of 1938 days in filing the first appeal.
- Holding: No, the court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the interim application, consequently dismissing the first appeal as well.
- Reasoning: The court reasoned that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate his claims of medical or financial incapacity. Specifically, the court noted that while the applicant cited a 2012 paralytic attack, the impugned order was passed much later in 2016, and no evidence showed he was incapacitated during the specific period of the delay. Furthermore, the applicant failed to name the advocates he allegedly consulted, rendering those claims "bald averments". The court observed a lack of consistency, noting that if the applicant's son could facilitate the filing in 2021, there was no explanation for why such action was not taken in 2016. Finally, the court criticized the "trend" of filing belated appeals only to frustrate execution proceedings, stating that granting such applications without sufficient cause would unfairly prejudice the successful decree-holder and reward an unsuccessful litigant's negligence.
🔒 For Members Only