Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... vs Shri. Vijay Dattaram Patil And Ors. on 9 October, 2025
025:BHC-AS:1
Diksha Rane 19 FA(ST) 112352021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 11235 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4328 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4329 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 11235 OF 2021
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPELLANT
VS.
VIJAY DATTARAM PATIL & ORS. ..RESPONDENTSA
------------
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for applicant - State.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 9 OCTOBER 2025.
P.C. :
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4328 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.
11235 OF 2021:-
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
Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported
Diksha Rane 19 FA(ST) 112352021.doc
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 19 FA(ST) 112352021.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.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4329 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.
11235 OF 2021:-
9. This application is filed for seeking stay for execution of the
judgment and award dated 13 September 2019.
Diksha Rane 19 FA(ST) 112352021.doc
10. Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the State submits that the entire amount has been deposited in the
Reference Court.
11. A copy of the receipt to that effect is tendered in this Court.
The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
12. In view of the same, the interim application is allowed in terms
of prayer clause (b) and disposed of accordingly.
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 11235 OF 2021:-
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Admit.
15. The appellant to file private paper-book within one year from
today. A copy of the same to be served on other side.
16. 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.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/10/2025 19:09:21
