Bombay High Court
CAS/1378/2017 of 1)CHANDRAKANT KRUSHNA KONDASKAR( SINCE DECD LEGAL HEIRS) 1A) CHANDRAKALA C. KONDASKAR and ORS. Vs 1) SITARAM NARAYAN KONDASKAR(DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) 1A) KANCHAN SITARAM KONDASKAR and ORS. on 16 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1378 OF 2017 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2017 1) Chandrakant Krushna Kondaskar (Since Decd Legal Heirs) 1a) Chandrakala C. Kondaskar And Others ...Applicants/ Appellants Versus 1) Sitaram
46-CAS-1378-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1378 OF 2017
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2017
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) Chandrakant Krushna Kondaskar (Since Decd Legal Heirs) 1a) Chandrakala C. Kondaskar And Others ...Applicants/ Appellants Versus
1) Sitaram Narayan Kondaskar (decd. Thr. Legal Heirs) 1a) Kanchan Sitaram Kondaskar And Others ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 705 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1379 OF 2017 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2017 —————— Mr. Mahesh Rawal a/w Mr. Neeraj Lavte, for the Respondent Nos. 1a & 1b. ——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2026 P. C. :
1. Civil Application has been preferred for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased Respondent No. 1 and for condonation of delay of 1 year 129 days.
2. Office noting indicates that Civil Application stands dismissed qua unserved Respondent No. 1(c) and by order dated 28th August, 2026, the Appellant was permitted to add one more prayer seeking setting aside of the order dated 26th April, 2022 passed by the learned Registrar Arya Chavan 1 of
2026:BHC-KOL:10145
46-CAS-1378-2017.doc (Judicial)-II.
3. The record does not indicate any amendment been carried out. In view thereof, the dismissal qua Respondent No. 1(c) stands.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) submits that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay of 1 year 129 days caused in filing the application. He would further point out that the conduct of the Applicants would indicate negligence, as despite orders of this Court, no steps have been taken as against the dismissal qua Respondent No. 1(c).
5. The Second Appeal is of the year 2017 and during the pendency of the Appeal, the Respondent No. 1 has expired. There is nothing on record in order to demonstrate that the death of the Respondent No. 1 was communicated immediately to the Applicant, and upon the Applicant No. 1 becoming aware of the death of Respondent No. 1, a notice was addressed to the Advocate for Respondent No. 1 seeking details. There is therefore sufficient explanation for the delay.
6. Resultantly, the delay stands condoned. Interim Application is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks. Re-verification is dispensed with.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 2 of