Allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Dilip Achyut Tendulkar

Bombay HC16 Aug 2006CAF/537/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Civil Appeals, addressed a 130-day delay in filing appeals by the State. Applying Supreme Court guidelines on condonation of delay, the court accepted the sufficient cause and allowed the appeals without imposing costs on the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 130 days in filing the appeals was condoned and both Civil Applications were allowed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dilip Achyut… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.537 OF 2005

¶5

IN

¶6

 FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO. 43481 OF 2002

¶7

IN

¶8

 L.A.R. NO. 176 OF 2000

¶9

 A L O N G W I T H

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.538 OF 2005

¶11

IN

¶12

 FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO. 43698 OF 2002

¶13

IN

¶14

 L.A.R. NO. 189 OF 2000

¶15

 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant

¶16

vs.

¶17

 Shri. Dilip Achyut Tendulkar ...Respondent

¶18

 S.N. Gawade, Government Pleader for the appellants.

¶19

 D.N. Gondhali for respondents.

¶20

CORAM: S.B. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : AUGUST 16, 2006.
P.C. :

¶21

 1. The learned AGP, who is appearing in these
 two Civil Applications submits, that copy of

¶22

:2:

¶23

 judgment and award passed by the reference court was
 applied on 30/08/2002. On receipt of copies, after
 following the procedure, required to be undertaken
 on behalf of the State, these two appeals have been
 filed in this court. In this process, delay of 130
 days is caused in filing these two appeals. This
 delay is explained in paragraph 1 of the Civil
 Applications.

¶24

 2. Though reply-affidavit is not filed on

¶25

 behalf of the respondents in these two Civil
 Applications, according to the learned counsel for
 the Respondents, no specific reason for delay of
 about 130 days is tendered by the Appellants.

¶26

 3. The expresssion ‘sufficient cause’ mentioned in
 Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act is considered by
 this court and apex court time and again. In the
 matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. reported in AIR

¶27

1987 S.C. page 1353, the apex court, has, laid

¶28

 down, six guidelines. Those guidelines are

¶29

 reproduced herein below.

¶30

:3:

¶31

 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand
 to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

¶32

 2. Refusing to condone delay can result
 in a meritorious matter being thrown out at
 the very threshold and cause of justice
 being defeated. As against this when delay
 is condoned the highest that can happen is
 that a cause would be decided on merits after
 hearing the parties.

¶33

 3. "Every day’s delay must be
 explained" does not mean that a pedantic
 approach should be made. Why not every
 hour’s delay, every second’s delay ? The
 doctrine must be applied in a rational
 common sense pragmatic manner.

¶34

 4. When substantial justice and technical
 considerations are pitted against each other,
 cause of substantial justice deserves to be
 preferred for the other side cannot claim to
 have vested right in injustice being done
 because of a non-deliberate delay.

¶35

 5. There is no presumption that delay is
 occasioned deliberately, or on account of
 culpable negligence, or on account of
 malafides. A litigant does not stand to
 benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he
 runs a serious risk.

¶36

 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is
 respect not on account of its power to
 legalize injustice on technical grounds but
 because it is capable of removing injustice
 and is expected to do so.

¶37

 4. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment

¶38

 of the apex court, in the matter of N. Balkrishnan
vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC page

¶39

:4:

¶40

3222. It is held by the apex court in paragraph 13
 as under :

¶41

 "13. It must be remembered that in every
 case of delay there can be some lapse on the
 part the litigant concerned. That alone is
 not enough to turn down his plea and to shut
 the door against him. If the explanation
 does not smack of malafides or it is not put
 forth as part of a dilatory strategy the
 court must show utmost consideration to the
 suitor. But when there is reasonable ground
 to think that the delay was occasioned by
 the party deliberately to gain time then the
 court should lean against acceptance of the
 explanation. While condoning delay the
 court should not forget the opposite party
 altogether. It must be borne in mind that
 he is a looser and he too would have
 incurred quite a large litigation expenses.
 It would be a salutary guideline that when
 courts condone the delay due to latches on
 the part of the applicant the court shall
 compensate the opposite party for his loss.

¶42

 5. Having considered the explanation tendered in
 these two applications, I am satisfied that delay
 occurred is on account of just and sufficient
 reason. Looking to the fact that the delay is only
 of 130 days I am not inclined to direct any cost to
 be paid to the respondents.

¶43

 6. In the result, both the Civil applications
 are allowed. Delay of 130 days caused in filing of

¶44

:5:

¶45

 appeal is condoned. Civil Applications are

¶46

 accordingly allowed and disposed off.

¶47

 (JUDGE)

The State of Maharashtra v. Dilip Achyut Tendulkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Dilip Achyut Tendulkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balu Thakaji Navghire Vs Maniram Krishna Shewale and Ors.

Suneel D. Mogre Vs Viren J. Joshi

Jugalkishore Ramnarayan and Ors. Vs Sushilabai D. More and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dilip Achyut Tendulkar

Parvatibai Baburao Shitole Vs Balu Bhimrao Olekar and Ors.

The Regional Director Employees State Insurance Co. Vs Subhash Bandu Wani