Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Nandur ... vs Shri Khandu Sakharam Rahade (Died) ... on 16 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:45351
Diksha Rane 29 CAF 3172018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.317/2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 26562/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NANDUR MADHYAMESHWAR
PROJECT DIVISION, NASHIK ..APPLICANT
VS
SHRI KHANDU SAKHARAM RAHADE
(DIED) THRU. L.R. SHRI ARJUN
KHANDU RAHADE AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Mahesh Pawar i/b. Adv. Chaitrali Deshmukh for applicant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent no.7 - State.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 16 OCTOBER 2025.
P.C. :
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.317/2018 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.
26562/2017:-
1. This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the
first appeal.
2. Office remarks shows that the respondents are duly served.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. 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:
Diksha Rane 29 CAF 3172018.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."
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) MH. L.J. 807, paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:
Diksha Rane 29 CAF 3172018.doc
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 as
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. 26562/2017:-
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Admit.
11. The appellant to file private paper-book within six months
Diksha Rane 29 CAF 3172018.doc
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.
13. Parties to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along
with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them
within one week from today.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/10/2025 19:00:50
