Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... vs Bhimi Kalu Padvi (Deceased) ... on 10 October, 2025
Diksha Rane 33 FA(ST) 60302018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 6030/2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3077/2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3076/2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 6030/2018
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(THROUGH THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, NASHIK) & ANR. ..APPELLANTS
VS
BHIMI KALU PADVI (DECEASED)
THROUGHLEGAL HEIRS 1A)MR.SITARAM
KALU PADVI AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for applicants - State.
Ms. Bhavana Khemani i/b. Mr. Anil Ahuja for respondent Nos.1A to
1C, 2, 3A and 4.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 10 OCTOBER 2025.
P.C. :
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3076/2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.
6030/2018:-
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.
Diksha Rane 33 FA(ST) 60302018.doc
4. The 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
Diksha Rane 33 FA(ST) 60302018.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. 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.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3077/2018 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.
6030/2018:-
9. This application is filed for seeking stay to the execution of the
Diksha Rane 33 FA(ST) 60302018.doc
impugned judgment and award dated 18 December 2014, passed by
the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik in L.A.R.no.78 of 2006
10. Subject to the State depositing the entire award amount
alongwith accrued interest within a period of twelve weeks from
today in the Reference Court, there will be stay to the execution of
the judgment and award dated 18 December 2014, passed by the
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik in L.A.R.no.78 of 2006.
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 6030/2018:-
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Admit.
13. The appellants to file private paper-book within one year from
today. A copy of the same to be served on other side.
14. 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: 10/10/2025 18:02:55
