Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... vs Smt. Gulabbai Namdeo Thakur on 1 October, 2025
20. IA 32-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25048 OF 2019
ANAND
SUDHAKAR The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
SUDAME
Versus
Digitally signed Smt. Gulabbai Namdeo Thakur & ors. ..Respondents
by ANAND
SUDHAKAR Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the Applicant - State
SUDAME
None for the Respondent
Date: 2025.10.03
11:14:47 +0530
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 01.10.2025
P. C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2019
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the acquiring body,
seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal.
2. There is no reply filed by the Respondent opposing the present
Interim Application.
3. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Addl. GP for the Applicant - State.
I have gone through the contents of the Interim Application.
4. Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC
1353, has held that:
Anand 1 of 5
20. IA 32-2019.doc
"Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean
that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not
every house's delay. Every second's delay ? The doctrine
must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic
manner."
5. Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs
V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341,
more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said judgment held
that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should be given. The
said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
12. The expression "sufficient cause" as appearing in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
Unless the respondents are able to show malafides in
not approaching the court within the period of
limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be
condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with
the matter with regard to condonation of delay has
tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the
parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning
thereby that such technicalities have been given go-by.
13. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or
foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their
remedy promptly.
6. Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya
Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007 (1)
MH. L.J. 807, paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:
13. The factual position is manifestly clear on bare
perusal of the application for condonation filed by the
Anand 2 of 5
20. IA 32-2019.doc
petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only
relevant statement in the application is thus:
"The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six
months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The
appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is
not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss
which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The
suit was for recovery of possession and present
appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then
appellants will become shelterless."
15. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased
from section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive
liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of
section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some
cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the
purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such
"sufficient cause" stated in the application and as such
no interference in the impugned order is called for."
7. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down
in the above Judgments, I am convinced that the present Interim
Application deserves to be allowed.
8. The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25048 OF 2019
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. The Appellant to file a private paper book within a period of 6
months from today. A copy thereof to be served on the other side.
4. Soft copy of R & P be sent by the trial Court to the High Court
Anand 3 of 5
20. IA 32-2019.doc
within a period of 4 weeks from today. The original R & P should be
preserved by the trial Court till further Orders of this Court. The
original R & P to be sent to the High Court when called for.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2019
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. This Interim Application has been filed by the State of
Maharashtra seeking stay to the execution of the Judgment and Award
dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug, Raigad in
LAR No. 259 of 2016.
3. Subject to the Applicant's depositing the entire Award amount
along with interest accrued thereon within a period of 12 weeks from
today, there shall be stay to the execution of the Judgment and Award
dated 02.05.2018 passed by learned 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug, Raigad in
LAR No. 259 of 2016. The amount to be deposited in Reference Court.
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 33748 OF 2024
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. This Cross Objection is filed by the acquiring body, in First
Appeal (St.) No. 25048 of 2019.
Anand 4 of 5
20. IA 32-2019.doc
3. Heard Mr. Patil, Addl. GP for the Applicant - State.
4. Admit.
5. To be heard along with F. A. (St.) No. 25048 of 2019.
6. The Original Claimants are permitted to file a private paper book
within a period of 12 weeks from today.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 5 of 5
