Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shri. Harishchandra Rambhau Patil on 1 October, 2025
30. CAF 48-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2021
ANAND IN
SUDHAKAR FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22652 OF 2019
SUDAME
WITH
Digitally signed CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2021
by ANAND IN
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22652 OF 2019
Date: 2025.10.03
11:14:19 +0530 The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..Applicants
Versus
Harishchandra Rambhau Patil ..Respondent
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the Applicant - State
None for the Respondent
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 01.10.2025
P. C.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2021
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 sole Respondent has been duly served.
None appears for the Respondent when the matter is called out.
3. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Addl. GP for the Applicant - State.
I have gone through the contents of the Civil Application.
Anand 1 of 4
30. CAF 48-2021.doc
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:
"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
Anand 2 of 4
30. CAF 48-2021.doc
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."
7. 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.
8. The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25048 OF 2019
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
Anand 3 of 4
30. CAF 48-2021.doc
3. The Appellants 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. 49 OF 2021
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the State of
Maharashtra seeking stay to the execution of the Judgment and Award
dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug, Raigad in
LAR No. 333 of 2016.
2. 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 23.07.2018 passed by learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Alibaug, Raigad in
LAR No. 333 of 2016. The amount to be deposited in Reference Court.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
