Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Krishna Valley ... vs Mr.Pandu Dhondiba Pawagi And Ors. on 22 September, 2025
Sharada
1/4
41-CAF-2528-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2528 OF 2018
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 36703 OF 2017
Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development
Corporation ..... Applicant
VERSUS
Mr.Pandu Dhondiba Pawagi And
Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Ashish Gabhale i/by Jay and Company, for the Applicant.
Ms.Riya Bhosale a/w. Ms.Payal Patil for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional G.P. for State-Respondent No.3.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER , 2025
P.C. :-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2528 OF 2018
1) This Civil Application is filed to condone delay of 1 year and 71
days in filing the First Appeal.
2) Mr.Gabhale, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant
submits that in the present proceedings, the stay was granted subject
to the Applicant depositing the entire award with the Reference Court.
He submits that accordingly the Applicant has complied with the
Sharada
41-CAF-2528-2018.doc
directions and the amount was deposited with the Reference Court.
3) He further submits that pursuant thereto, the Respondents,
original claimants have withdrawn the amount from the Reference
Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the withdrawal
application. He submits that therefore the delay can be condoned and
the First Appeal can be admitted.
4) I have heard learned Advocates for both the sides and with their
help, I have gone through the contents of the Civil Application.
5) 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."
6) 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
Sharada
41-CAF-2528-2018.doc
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.
7) 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:
"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."
Sharada
41-CAF-2528-2018.doc
8) According to me, considering the submissions made in the
Civil Application and the law laid down in above judgments, I am
satisfied that a case is made out to allow the Civil Application.
9) The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(A) and disposed of accordingly.
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 36703 OF 2017
1. Heard counsel for both the sides.
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 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.]
