Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashra (Thr.The Deputy ... vs Kai. Pandurang Rama Tandel Deceased ... on 1 October, 2025
21. IA 259-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 259 OF 2019
IN
ANAND FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25346 OF 2019
SUDHAKAR WITH
SUDAME INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25346 OF 2019
Digitally signed
by ANAND The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME Versus
Date: 2025.10.03
11:13:45 +0530 Pandurang Rama Tandel (since deceased) ..Respondents
through legal heirs & ors.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the Applicant - State
None for the Respondents
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 01.10.2025
P. C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 259 OF 2019
1. This Civil Application has been filed by the acquiring body,
seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal.
2. Office noting shows that Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 have been
duly served. The State has filed Affidavit of service dated 04.07.2025
thereby stating that all the four Respondents have been duly served by
hand delivery.
Anand 1 of 5
21. IA 259-2019.doc
3. None appears for the Respondents.
4. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Addl. GP for the Applicant - State.
I have gone through the contents of the Civil Application.
5. 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:
"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."
6. 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
Anand 2 of 5
21. IA 259-2019.doc
foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their
remedy promptly.
7. 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
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."
8. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down
in the above Judgments and more particularly paragraph 3, which runs
into three pages, I am convinced that the present Interim Application
deserves to be allowed.
Anand 3 of 5
21. IA 259-2019.doc
9. The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25346 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
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. 260 OF 2019
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the State of
Maharashtra seeking stay to the execution of the Judgment and Award
dated 06.02.2018 passed by learned 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug in LAR No.
157 of 2016.
2. 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 06.02.2018 passed by learned 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug in LAR No.
Anand 4 of 5
21. IA 259-2019.doc
157 of 2016. The amount to be deposited in Reference Court.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 5 of 5
