MADHAVI VIKRAM Vs. PRAKASH DATTU CHOUGULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, Appellant challenges Order dtd. 20/6/2018 passed by the Learned District Judge, Sangli, dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2015 filed by her seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 6 months 19 days in filing Appeal before the first Appellate Court challenging the decree dtd. 30/11/2010 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj in Regular Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000.

(2.) Appellant married Vikram alias Uday Chandrakant Mule, on 26/4/1994. On 4/6/1996 she purchased the suit property bearing Gat No. 377 admeasuring 2 Hectares 10 Ares in Village Arag, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli by way of registered Sale-deed executed by Plaintiff's father Dattu Chougule. Respondent/Plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 401 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli on 22/8/1996 seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed dtd. 4/6/1996 executed in Appellant's favour was not binding on him and also sought injunction against Appellant from disturbing his possession. Plaintiff claims that the suit property was joint family property and that his father did not have authority to sell the same. He claimed ' share in the suit property. It is the case of the Appellant that her husband used to look after the said suit for which she appointed him as her attorney. Appellant's husband expired on 21/12/1996 in an accident. It appears that Suit was subsequently transferred to Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj and numbered Regular Civil Suit No. 485 of 2000. The suit was dismissed for default on 3/3/2003. The suit was restored on 12/11/2008 and Appellant received summons in the year 2010 and she remained present before the Trial Court on 22/6/2010. However, it appears that, she did not file her written statement. The suit thus proceeded without written statement and came to be decreed on 30/11/2010. The Trial Court declared that Sale Deed dtd. 4/6/1996 executed in Appellant's favour was illegal and not binding on Plaintiff.

(3.) Appellant did not take immediate steps to challenge the decree dtd. 30/11/2010. She decided to file Appeal against the decree of the Trial Court before District Judge, Sangli and filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 177 of 2015 for Condonation of Delay of 4 years 6 months and 19 days in filing the Appeal. By the Order impugned in the present Appeal passed by the District Court on 20/6/2018, Appellant's Application for Condonation of Delay has been rejected. Aggrieved by the District Court's decision, Appellant has filed the present Appeal.