Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer, Nandur ... vs Govind Laxman Sable Decased Thr. Lrs. ... on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:40280
51-IA-143-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2020
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.246 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2020
Executive Engineer, Nandur
Madhyameshwar Project, ... Applicant
V/s.
Govind Laxman Sable Decased
Thr. Lrs. 1a. Kacharu Govind
Sable And Ors. ... Respondents
____________________________________
Ms. Chaitrali A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Sarfaraj Shaikh i/by Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent Nos.1A,
1C, 1D, 4 & 5.
____________________________________
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 23rd September 2025
P.C.:
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2020
1. This Application is filed for condoning the delay of 2 year 42
days in filing the First Appeal.
2. I have heard both the sides and I have gone through the
contents of the application and in Paragraph No.4 delay has been
explained which runs into 6 pages.
Sharada
51-IA-143-2020.doc
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
Sharada
51-IA-143-2020.doc
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."
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.246 OF 2020
1. This First Appeal is filed by the State challenging the
Judgment and Award dated 7th August 2017 passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, in L.A.R. No.10 of 2010.
Sharada
51-IA-143-2020.doc
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.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2020
1. Stand over to 7th October 2025.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Sharada
