Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... vs Shri. Ganesh Macchindra Patil Thr. His ... on 1 October, 2025
31. IA 4025-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4025 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 11382 OF 2021
ANAND The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME Versus
Ganesh Macchindra Patil through ..Respondent
his Power of Attorney holder Mr. Anil Vandre
Digitally signed
by ANAND Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl.GP, for the Applicant - State
SUDHAKAR Mr. Sachin M. Kamble, Advocate, for the Respondent
SUDAME
Date: 2025.10.03 CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
11:13:11 +0530
DATE : 01.10.2025
P. C.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4025 OF 2021
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the State, seeking
condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal.
2. Mr. Kamble, learned Counsel for the Original Claimant fairly
states that this Application can be allowed and the First Appeal can be
taken up for final hearing.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. I have gone
through the contents of the Interim Application.
4. Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anand 1 of 4
31. IA 4025-2021.doc
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
Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007 (1)
Anand 2 of 4
31. IA 4025-2021.doc
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 Interim
Application deserves to be allowed.
8. The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 11382 OF 2021
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. The Appellant to file a private paper-book within a period of six
Anand 3 of 4
31. IA 4025-2021.doc
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
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. 4026 OF 2021
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 13.09.2019 passed by learned Jt. C.J.S.D., Panvel in LAR No. 420
of 2016.
3. Mr. Patil, learned Addl. GP states that the entire Award amount
has been deposited before the Reference Court.
4. Hence, the Interim Application stands allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b).
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
