Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... vs Shri Madhav Sitaram Gawande And Ors. on 1 October, 2025
18. CAF 3072-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3072 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5990 OF 2018
ANAND The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Applicants
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Versus
Madhav Sitaram Gawande & ors. ..Respondents
Digitally signed by
ANAND Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the Applicant - State
SUDHAKAR Ms. Bhavna Khemani i/b. Mr. Anil Ahuja, Advocates, for Respondent
SUDAME Nos. 1 to 3
Date: 2025.10.03
11:11:31 +0530 CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 01.10.2025
P. C.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3072 OF 2018
1. This Civil Application has been filed by the acquiring body,
seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. I have gone
through the contents of the Civil Application. In para 2 of the
Application, reasons for condonation of delay have been explained
which runs in seven pages.
3. 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 4
18. CAF 3072-2018.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."
4. 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.
5. 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 4
18. CAF 3072-2018.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."
6. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down
in the above Judgments, I am convinced that the present Civil
Application deserves to be allowed.
7. The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 5990 OF 2018
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. The Appellants to file a private paper-book within a period of six
months from today. A copy of the same to be served on other side.
4. Soft copy of R & P be sent by the trial Court to the High Court
Anand 3 of 4
18. CAF 3072-2018.doc
within 4 weeks from today. Original R & P should be preserved by the
trial Court till further orders of this Court. Original R & P to be sent to
the High Court when called for.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3073 OF 2018
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 18.12.2014 passed by learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Nashik in LAR No. 76
of 2006.
3. Subject to the Applicants' 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 18.12.2014 passed by learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Nashik in LAR No. 76
of 2006. The amount to be deposited in Reference Court.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
