Bombay High Court

CA/11711/2026 of SATVA GOVIND GAIKWAD DIED THR HIS LRS 1A KACHRU DIED THR LRS 1A1 SURESH AND OTHERS Vs GANGADHAR ARJUN JADHAV DIED THROUGH LRS 1 SOPAN AND OTHERS on 8 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11711 OF 2026 IN/WITH SA/176/1993 Satva Govind Gaikwad Died Thr His Lrs 1a Kachru Died Thr Lrs 1a1 Suresh And Others VERSUS Gangadhar Arjun Jadhav Died Through Lrs 1 Sopan And Others ... Advocate for

ca11711.26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11711 OF 2026

IN/WITH SA/176/1993

Satva Govind Gaikwad Died Thr His Lrs 1a Kachru Died Thr Lrs 1a1

Suresh And Others

VERSUS

Gangadhar Arjun Jadhav Died Through Lrs 1 Sopan And Others

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Avinash N. Barhate Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. R/1a to 1d : Mr. S. S. Shete

…..

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED

: 08th OCTOBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1905 days caused in bringing the legal representatives of appellant No. 1A on record and the delay of 1446 days caused in bringing the legal representatives of appellant 2B and 2D on record and for setting aside the abatement as against appellant Nos. 1A, 2B and 2D.

2. Perused the application. Heard learned advocates for both sides. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the application and submitted that the delay is not properly explained. He submitted that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay as contemplated by section 5 of Limitation Act. It is lastly prayed to reject the application.

ca11711.26

3. On perusal of the application and the reasons stated in it, it appears that the appeal has completed more than 33 years and that the delay is not deliberately caused, the application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. The application therefore, is allowed. The delay is condoned. Abatement is set aside. The amendment is directed to be carried out within a week from today. It is clarified that if the amendment is not carried out within the stipulated time, as aforesaid, an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the costs, be deposited in the account of the Advocates’ Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co-operative Society, High Court Premises, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

4. List the second appeal on 15.10.2026 at 10.30. a.m. Learned advocate for the appellants and the respondents are directed to argue the matter on the next, as the matter has completed more than 33 years.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead