Bombay High Court
CAS/918/2025 of LAXMAN GULABRAO GALAT Vs PARMESHWAR DAMDUJI YENORKAR on 9 October 2026
918-25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
1 / 4 21-ca 918-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 918 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 21067 OF 2025
Laxman Gulabrao Galat Vs.Parmeshwar Damduji Yenorkar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.A.S.Deshpande, counsel for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mr.S.M.Bahirwar, counsel for the respondent.
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 09/10/2026
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.
2. The applicant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay of 322 days in filing the appeal. It is stated that the applicant is 70 years of age and is a layman, who was unaware of the legal requirements for filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that, owing to health issues and financial difficulties, the applicant could not file the appeal within the prescribed period. The delay is stated to be neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application, contending that the statements made by the Kavita 2 / 4 21-ca 918-25 applicant are incorrect. It is submitted that the applicant was employed and was not a daily-wage labourer. Though the applicant claims to be unaware of the legal requirements, incorrect statements have been made in the application. It is further contended that the delay has not been properly explained. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for rejection of the application.
4. Heard both the sides.
5. Considering the age of the applicant and the fact that he was employed, it cannot be expected that he would necessarily be aware of the legal requirements for filing an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Having regard to the reasons stated in the application, it appears that the delay is not deliberate. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay of 322 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the applicant depositing costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) in the ‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing Account No.129712010001014(IFSC Code: UBIN0812978), Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Civil Lines, Nagpur within a period of two weeks.
6. The Registry is directed to register the appeal upon compliance with the aforesaid condition.
7. The civil application stands disposed of accordingly. Kavita
3 / 4 21-ca 918-25 SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 21067 OF 2025 .
1. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The suit was instituted by him for removal of encroachment and was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal seeking remand of the matter to the trial court for cross- examination of the surveyor. The said request was rejected, and the appeal came to be dismissed.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- A. Whether a finding of encroachment can be legally sustained in absence of ascertainment of its factum and extent on the basis of authentic public records and reliable boundary measurements, particularly when the survey reports on record were inconsistent? B. Whether the courts below acted contrary to settled principles of law in dismissing the suit on account of defective measurement, instead of directing a re-measurement, especially when lapses of surveyors cannot prejudice the parties to the litigation?
3. Issue notice to the respondent on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable on 20/11/2026. Kavita
4 / 4 21-ca 918-25
4. Mr. S.M.Bahirwar, learned counsel waives the service of notice on behalf of the respondent.
JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/10/2026 18:10:02