Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn More
36. Deepak Afle v. Dharam Developers and Finvest Limited and Others
2026:MPHC-IND:28413
October 8, 2026
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Litigant relying on legal advice – Mistake of advocate – Length of delay not decisive where explanation is satisfactory – Delay condoned subject to costs. [Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. IX, R. 13]
FACTS
The respondent company filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land and obtained an ex parte decree against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he first learnt of the decree when he received notice in execution proceedings and thereafter engaged an advocate. However, the advocate did not advise him to apply for setting aside the ex parte decree. Upon approaching another advocate in July 2022, the petitioner was advised to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was filed on November 17, 2022, with a delay of 1,093 days.
The Trial Court rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient cause, and that his conduct
