Bombay High Court
CAS/1525/2026 of SADASHIV RAJARAMJI PHOPHATE AND OTHERS Vs VITHOBA HIRMANJI TIDKE (DEAD) THR. LRS. KAMLABAI VITHOBA TIDKE on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
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 cas1525.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.S. NO.1525/2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.5330/2026 Sadashiv S/o Rajaramji Pophate and others ..V/s.. Vithoba Hirmanji Tidke through L.Rs. Smt. Kamlabai Wd/o Vithoba Tidke and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Ketki Jaltare Vaidya, Counsel for the applicants. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 15.10.2026. Heard.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 623 days caused in filing the second appeal.
3. According to the applicants, there is no delay as the appeal was filed within limitation but due to change in portal the file was misplaced and it was not traceable. When the learned Counsel for the applicant tried to verify it from the office, office informed that said file is not traceable due to change in portal and the applicant has to file a fresh appeal. According to office, there is delay of 623 days.
4. Considering the technical difficulty and the fact that the applicants are not at fault for the delay which is caused due to disappearance of the earlier appeal filed by the applicants, delay of 623 days is condoned. Registry is directed to register the appeal. The application is allowed and disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.5330/2026
5. The appellants are the original defendants. The suit was filed for declaration, injunction and 2 cas1525.2026 damages. The suit was partly decreed and the relief for damages was rejected. The direction was given to the defendants to restore Bandh. Being aggrieved, the defendants had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Trial Court was right in holding on the basis of Exh.35 that the Bandh between the fields was destroyed by the defendants, the Exh.35 was not proved?
(ii) Whether the Appellate Court was right in upholding the order passed by the Trial Court, specially in the circumstances when it held that the Exh.35 was not proved and cannot be relied on?
(iii) Whether the Courts below were right in deciding the issue regarding the boundaries and Bandh of the field, without appointing a Court Commissioner and calling for the report, as held by this Honorable court in Kisanlal-vs-Dinkar, 2003(Supp-2) Bom. C.R. 329?
(iv) Whether the Appellate Court was right in holding that the judgment of the Trial Court is right, after holding that the Exh-35 was not proved, especially in the circumstances when the judgment of the Trial Court is based on Exh.35?”
6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.
7. Liberty is granted to the appellants to file application for adjournment before the Executing Court and the Executing Court to positively consider it.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Tambaskar. Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/10/2026 17:13:37