Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... vs Shri. Prabhakar Kashinath Gharat ... on 22 September, 2025
51-FA(ST)-11791-2021..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.11791 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16995 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14869 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16996 OF 2023
The State Of Maharashtra Thr.
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Raigad ... Appellant
V/s.
Shri. Prabhakar Kashinath
Gharat (Deceased)
Thr.Lrs.1.1)Smt.Sushila
Prabhakar Gharat And Ors ... Respondents
____________________________________
Mr. A. R Patil, Additional G.P. for the State-Applicant.
Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for Respondent Nos.2(i) to 2(3) 4(2) to
4(10), 5 to 10 and 12.
____________________________________
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 22nd September 2025
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16995 OF 2023
1. This Application is filed for condoning the delay of 1 year
and 38 days in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard both sides and I have gone through the contents
Sharada
51-FA(ST)-11791-2021..doc
of the application. I am satisfied that the Applicant has made out a
case to condone the delay.
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:
"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)
Sharada
51-FA(ST)-11791-2021..doc
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."
6. According to me, considering the submissions made in the Interim
Application and the law laid down in above judgments, I am satisfied
that a case is made out to allow the Interim Application.
7. Hence, Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.11791 OF 2021
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
Sharada
51-FA(ST)-11791-2021..doc
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.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14869 OF 2024
1. This application has been filed by the State for issuance of
fresh notice to unserved Respondent.
2. Issue notice to unserved Respondents, returnable on 16th
October 2025.
3. Mr. Suresh Kamble, waives notice on behalf of the
Respondent Nos.2(i) to 2(3) 4(2) to 4(10), 5 to 10 and 12.
4. Apart from court notice, the Applicant is permitted to serve
Respondents, by all permissible modes of service and file Affidavit
of Service before the next date of hearing.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Sharada
