Bombay High Court
The Irrigation Officer Nandur ... vs Shri.Kailas Bandu Teknar And Anr. on 13 October, 2025
41. CAF 3911-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3911 OF 2017
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 20846 OF 2017
ANAND The Irrigation Officer,
Nandur Madhyameshwar Project
..Applicant
SUDHAKAR Division, Nashik
SUDAME
Versus
Kailas Bandu Teknar & anr. ..Respondents
Digitally signed
by ANAND Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Applicant
SUDHAKAR Mr. R. N. Gite, Advocate, for the Respondent
SUDAME Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the Respondent - State
Date: 2025.10.14
18:15:15 +0530 CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 13.10.2025
P. C.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3911 OF 2017
1. This Civil Application has been filed for condonation of delay of
4 years and 111 days in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and gone
through the contents of the Application.
3. 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:
Anand 1 of 4
41. CAF 3911-2017.doc
"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."
4. 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.
5. Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya
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
Anand 2 of 4
41. CAF 3911-2017.doc
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."
6. 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. The Civil Application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (b).
7. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 20846 OF 2017
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. The Appellant to file private paper-book within a period of six
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
Anand 3 of 4
41. CAF 3911-2017.doc
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.)
Anand 4 of 4
