Bombay High Court
Bunty Walia And Anr. vs Putul Bhagchandka And Anr. on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:55845
45 - IA-13509-13510-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN
NADAF
NADAF INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13509 OF 2025
Date:
2025.12.18 (DELAY)
11:04:39
+0530
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2010
Bunty Walia And Anr ...Applicants/Appellants
Versus
Putul Bhagchandka And Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13510 OF 2025
(STAY)
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2010
Bunty Walia And Anr ...Applicants/Appellants
Versus
Putul Bhagchandka And Anr. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Akash Loya with Ms. Jyoti Ghag and Mr. Shailesh Prajapati i/b.
Dua Associates for the Applicants/Appellants.
Mr. S.K. Dubey for Respondent No.1/Org. Plaintiff.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 17th DECEMBER, 2025
P.C. :
IN IA/13509/2025
1. Learned counsel for the Applicant has tendered an additional affidavit in support of the present application for condonation of delay of 8 years and 209 days (3129 days) in filing the appeal. The same is taken on record. Its copy is served upon the learned advocate Husen Page 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:51:08 ::: 45 - IA-13509-13510-2025.doc for Respondent No.1-Org. Plaintiff today in Court.
2. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 seeks time to file reply to the application / additional affidavit. He submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the application.
3. Let the reply be filed before next date, with its copy served upon other side.
4. Stand over to 16.01.2026.
IN IA/13510/2025
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Despite the fact that the delay condonation application is pending and there is large of delay of 8 years and 209 days (3129 days) in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the Applicant has pressed this application seeking ad-interim stay to the impugned Judgment and Decree.
7. He submits that under the impugned Judgment and Decree, apart from Defendant No.1-Company, Defendant Nos.2 & 3 who are Directors of the Company are also directed jointly and severally to pay amount of Rs.10,90,229/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization. He submits that challans and bills which are relied upon by the Trial Court while granting ex-parte decree, are drawn in the name of Defendant No.1 Company and as such, it is the Company which is liable and the Directors cannot be made liable in their personal capacity. He invited Court's attention to various Husen Page 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:51:08 ::: 45 - IA-13509-13510-2025.doc challans and bills produced by way of compilation of documents.
8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1-org. Plaintiff opposed grant of any ad-interim stay contending that it is a money decree and without deposit of entire amount under decree with interest, ad- interim stay cannot be granted. He submitted that the Applicant's Notice of Motion, under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procure Code, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex-parte Decree has been dismissed on 26.02.2019. He submits that he is seriously opposing delay for which he needs to file reply and unless delay is condoned, no indulgence be shown.
9. I have considered rival submissions.
10. Perusal of the record shows that it was a suit filed by Respondent No.1 for recovery of money towards supply of shooting material, equipments and workers to the Defendant No.1 Company, of which the Applicants are Directors. The Applicants have been held liable to pay the amount along with the Company, under the impugned Judgment and Decree. The motion filed by the Applicants under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC (to set aside ex-parte decree) has been dismissed on 26.02.2019. While dismissing the motion, the Trial Court has held that notices were duly served upon the Appellants and no written statement was filed by either of the Defendants. The Trial Court has held that after the suit was transferred from this Court to City Civil Court, due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction, notices were served on the Defendants and therefore, according to the record, fresh notices were served after transfer of the matter. The Trial Court Husen Page 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:51:08 ::: 45 - IA-13509-13510-2025.doc has also held that the Applicants did not come to the Court with clean hands, and as such, motion for setting ex-parte decree was dismissed. After dismissal of the motion on 26.02.2019, apparently the present appeal/application is filed on 01.10.2025.
11. From the aforesaid dates, apparently there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. According to the office note, it is about 8 years and 209 days. The delay is yet not condoned. The argument about merits of the appeal can be considered only after delay is condoned as during pendency of the delay condonation application, the consideration on merits stands excluded as the remedy remains barred by law of limitation.
12. In such circumstances, when the impugned decree is apparently a money decree, without deposit of the amount under decree with interest, no indulgence can be shown to the Applicants. In that view of the matter, the prayer for ad-interim stay is rejected.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Husen Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2025 20:51:08 :::