Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer, Nandur ... vs Zumbarabai Laxman Shirsat And Ors. on 9 October, 2025
Diksha Rane 17 IA 13312020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1933 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1331 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1333 OF 2020
IN
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1933 OF 2020
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR
MADHYAMESHWAR PROJECT ..APPELLANT
VS.
ZUMBARABAI LAXMAN SHIRSAT & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Mr. Mahesh Pawar i/b. Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for applicant.
Mr. Sarfaraj Shaikh i/b. Mr. Sachin Gite for respondent nos.1 to 11.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for State.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 9 OCTOBER 2025.
P.C. :
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1331 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.
1933 OF 2020 :-
1. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the
First Appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. I have gone through the contents of the application and
convinced that the application requires to be allowed.
4. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land
Diksha Rane 17 IA 13312020.doc
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
Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported in 2007
Diksha Rane 17 IA 13312020.doc
(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. According to me, considering the submissions and the law laid
down in various judgments, a case is made out to allow the
application.
8. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and
disposed of accordingly.
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 1933 OF 2020 :-
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Admit.
Diksha Rane 17 IA 13312020.doc
11. The appellant to file private paper-book within one year from
today. A copy of the same to be served on other side.
12. 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. 1333 OF 2020 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.
1933 OF 2020:-
13. Stand over to 13 November 2025.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2025 19:04:50
