Bombay High Court
IA/1101/2026 of VITTHAL LAXMAN PATIL Vs APPASAHEB RAMCHANDRA PATIL on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1101 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 29245 OF 2025 Vitthal Laxman Patil ...Applicant Versus Appasaheb Ramchandra Patil ...Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1101 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 29245 OF 2025
Vitthal Laxman Patil
...Applicant
Versus
Appasaheb Ramchandra Patil
...Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi i/b Nagesh Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Sadhana Datar, Advocate for the Respondent.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE :
16th October, 2026.
P.C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Sadhana Datar, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
2. By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 125 days in filing the Second Appeal (ST) No. 29245 of 2025, against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.02.2025, passed by the District Judge-5, Sangli, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2018.
3. Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant states that the reasons for the said delay are stated in paragraph nos. Arjun
7 and 8 of this Application.
4. Ms. Sadhana Datar, learned Advocate for the Respondent, states that though this Application does not make out any cause, however, if the Respondent is compensated in terms of money for the inconvenience caused to the him, then, the Respondent has no objection for the condonation of delay of 125 days in filing the Second Appeal. She submits that the minimum cost to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent, be Rs. 25,000/-
5. Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is ready and willing to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent and request for condoning the delay. He states that the said cost shall be paid to the Respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from today.
6. Ms. Sadhana Datar, learned Advocate for the Respondent, states that the Respondent is ready to accept the cost of Rs. 10,000/- and submits that if the cost is paid, this Application be allowed.
7. In view of the statements made by Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Sadhana Datar, learned Advocate for the Respondent, the delay of 125 days in filing the Arjun
Second Appeal is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-. This Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
8. If the cost of Rs. 10,000/- is paid to the Respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from today and a receipt of the acknowledgement from the Respondent is produced before the Registry of this Court, the Registry is directed to register the Second Appeal.
9. Interim Application No. 1101 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun