##PAGE1##

KVM

1/4

24 - CAF 326 OF 2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed

by KANCHAN

KANCHANVINOD

VINOD MAYEKAR

MAYEKAR D 20a 2te 6: .02.03

11:42:22 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

+0530

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 326/2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25035/2017

THE IRRIGATION OFFICER ….. APPLICANT

VS

RAMA NATHU

RAHADE(DIED)SHRI.VISHNU

RAMBHAU RAHADE AND ORS. …. RESPONDENTS

Adv. Mahesh Pawar a/w. Adv. Vikas More for the Applicant.

Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional G.P. for the State/Respondents.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 30 JANUARY, 2026

P.C. :-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 326/2018

1) This civil application is filed by the acquiring body

seeking condonation of delay of 4 years and 186 days in filing First

Appeal.

2) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

Government Pleader and I have gone through the contents of the

application.

3) Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land

::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 13:18:08 :::

KVM

2/4

24 - CAF 326 OF 2018.doc

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) MH. L.J. 807, paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:

::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 13:18:08 :::

KVM

3/4

24 - CAF 326 OF 2018.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.”

6) According to me, considering the submissions made in the

Civil Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case is

made out to allow the Civil Application.

7) The Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(b) and disposed of accordingly.

FIRST APPEAL (ST)