Bombay High Court
The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal ... vs Balasaheb Sampatrao Suryawanshi And ... on 22 September, 2025
55-FA(ST)-20660-2023..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.20660 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18150 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18149 OF 2023
The Commissioner, Nashik
Municipal Corporation, Nashik ... Appellant
SHARADA
RANGNATH V/s.
WAHULE
Digitally signed by Balasaheb Sampatrao
SHARADA
RANGNATH WAHULE
Date: 2025.09.22
Suryawanshi And Ors ... Respondents
20:17:44 +0530
____________________________________
Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A. R. Patil Additional G.P. for the State.
____________________________________
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 22th September 2025
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18149 OF 2023
1. This Interim Application is filed for condoning the delay of 312
day in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard both the sides and I have gone through the contents
of the application. In Paragraph No.5 of the Application, delay has been
explained which runs into 3 pages.
3. Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC
Sharada
55-FA(ST)-20660-2023..doc
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."
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 petitioners before the
learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the
application is thus:
Sharada
55-FA(ST)-20660-2023..doc
"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 law as laid down by the Supreme Court and
taking into account the submissions made in the Interim Application, I
am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a case to allow the present
delay condonation Application.
7. Hence, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
Disposed of accordingly.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18150 OF 2023
1. This application is filed seeking stay to the execution of
Judgment and Award dated 6th May 2022 passed by Civil Judge
Senior Division, Nashik in L.A.R. No.137 of 2012.
2. Ms. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
submits that for the entire project, in land acquisition the
Applicant has deposited a sum of Rs.12.5 Crores with the
Reference Court as per the directions given by this Court in its
order dated 26th April, 2024.
Sharada
55-FA(ST)-20660-2023..doc
3. She submits that hence the Applicant has made out a case of
stay to the execution of the Award.
4. Prima facie,I am of the view that in the meanwhile, till the
next date of the hearing there will be stay to the execution of
Judgment and Award dated 6th May 2022 passed by Civil Judge
Senior Division, Nashik in L.A.R. No.137 of 2012.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Sharada
