The State Of Maharashtra vs Shri.Barku Fakira Tidke
2022 Latest Caselaw 10569 Bom

   Megha                                           901_fast_6885_1998.doc


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2106 OF 1999
                                         WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2105 OF 1999
                                           IN
                         FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.6855 OF 1998

   The State of Maharashtra                             ...Appellant
                        Versus
   Bharku Fakira Tidke through his
   legal heirs-
   1) Bhausaheb Barku Tidke and
   Ors.                                               ...Respondents
                                   ...
   Ms Tanaya Goswami, AGP for the Appellant-State.
   Mr. Ashwin Pimpale with Mr. Rohit Gorade i/b. Mr. R.N. Gite for the
   Respondents.

                                      CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2022.

P.C.:-

1. By this application, the Applicant-State has sought to

condone the delay of 2 years, 130 days in fling the frst appeal

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 27/03/1995 in Land

Reference No.40 of 1988.

2. The only reason assigned by the Applicant is that the delay

has been caused due to scrutiny and approvals at various levels. It is

true that expression 'sufcient cause' needs liberal interpretation.

However, it is equally true that inordinate delay in fling the appeals Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA S PARAB S Date:

PARAB   2022.09.12
        15:21:01
        +0530                                1/3
 Megha                                      901_fast_6885_1998.doc

cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner without there being any

satisfactory explanation. The Division Bench of this Court in State of

Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Shri Vithu Kalya Govari and Ors. 2008(4)

ALL MR 856 has observed that "period of limitation and object of

prescribing periods is not intended to destroy rights but is founded on

public policy fiing a life span for legal remedy for general welfare" .

Referring to the decision of N Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy,

(1998) 7 SCC 123 it is observed that "condonation of delay is a discretion

of the Court. Length of delay per se may not be a ground for rejecting an

application but if a satisfactory eiplanation has been furnished by the

parties which can be accepted by the Court in consonance with the settled

norms for eiercise of such jurisdiction. But if the eiplanation rendered is

so fanciful, then in such circumstances it will also be equally unfair to

deprive the other party of a valuable right which has accrued to them

from the default of the other party." In the said case the delay was

sought to be condoned on the ground of "ofcial hassle" and approvals

at diferent levels. The Division Bench has observed that such ground

can hardly justify condonation of delay.

3. In the instant case, land reference is of the year 1988, which

was decided on 27/03/1995. The appeal along with the application for

condonation of the delay was fled in the year 1999. The application

Megha 901_fast_6885_1998.doc

has remained pending for over 23 years. Considering this fact and also

the fact that the Applicant has not shown any sufcient cause for

condoning the delay, I am not inclined to entertain the application.

Hence, the application is dismissed. Registration of the appeal is

rejected.

4. Pending application (s), if any stand (s) disposed of.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)