Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Trimbak Vithoba Adhav and Others

Bombay HC26 Aug 2014CA/5180/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected multiple civil applications filed by the State of Maharashtra for condonation of an 848-day delay in filing first appeals. The Court found the State failed to show sufficient cause, relying on precedent that administrative lethargy or procedural lapses do not justify condoning inordinate delay, especially where the amounts involved were meager.

What did the court decide?

Civil applications for condonation of delay were rejected and dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Trimbak Vithoba… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1 ca5180.13

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5180 OF 2013

¶5

IN
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4586 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5182 OF 2013
IN
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4589 OF 2013
WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5184 OF 2013
IN

¶6

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4594 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5186 OF 2013
IN
 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.4597 OF 2013

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
TRIMBAK VITHOBA ADHAV AND OTHERS

¶8

...

¶9

A.G.P. for Applicant : Shri.V.P.Kadam

¶10

...
CORAM : K. K. TATED, J.
Dated: August 26, 2014

¶11

...

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1.Heard Shri.V.P.Kadam, learned A.G.P. for
the applicants.

¶14

2.These applications are preferred by
original respondent State of Maharashtra for
condonation of 848 days delay in filing first

¶15

VSM/-

¶16

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶17

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶18

2 ca5180.13

¶19

appeals challenging the common judgment dated
20.07.2010 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrigonda
in land acquisition references.

¶20

3.Shri.V.P.Kadam, learned A.G.P. submits that
Law & Judiciary department has scrutinised the
proposal and arrived at a conclusion to prefer
appeal in this court. Thereafter, Law & Judiciary
department, vide communication dated 08.06.2011
informed the office of Government Pleader for filing
present first appeals. He submits that at the time
of drafting appeal memo, the concerned A.G.P.
noticed that they have not received certified copies
of impugned judgment and award passed by the
reference court alongwith typed copies. Hence
office of Government Pleader issued a letter dated
16.06.2011 to the concerned authority for forwarding
typed copies of judgment and award, difference chart
and requisite amount for payment of court fees. He
submits that as soon as they received certified
copies and typed copies of impugned judgment and
award passed by the reference court, they filed
present first appeals in this court on 11.02.2013.
He submits that delay occurred in the present first
appeals is mainly on the ground of procedure
required to be followed by the State Government at

¶21

VSM/-

¶22

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶23

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶24

3 ca5180.13

¶25

the time of filing first appeal. He submits that
applicants have good chance of success in the
present matter and if the delay is not condoned
irreparable loss and injury will cause to them.

¶26

4.I heard learned A.G.P. at length. It is to
be noted that in the present proceedings, reference
court passed common judgment and award on
20.07.2010. Thereafter, applicant applied for
certified copies on 21.07.2010. The same was ready
for delivery and collected on 14.02.2011. Present
first appeals filed in this court on 12.02.2013.

¶27

5.In the matter of C.A.No.5180 of 2013, the
reference court awarded enhanced compensation in
respect of land to the tune of Rs.8160/-, in
C.A.No.5182/13, Rs.8160/-, in C.A.No.5184/13,
Rs.46,620/- and in C.A.No.5186/13, Rs.7310/-. The
reason disclosed by the applicant in para nos.2 & 3
of civil application do not disclose sufficient
cause for condonation of inordinate delay. Para
nos.2 & 3 of civil application, which are identical
in all the matters, read thus :-

¶28

"2.That, the applicant say and
submit that the Law and Judiciary
Department has scrutinised the

¶29

VSM/-

¶30

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶31

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶32

4 ca5180.13

¶33

proposal and arrived at conclusion
to prefer appeal and thereafter vide
communicationdated08.06.2011
informed the Government Pleader,
High Court Bench at Aurangabad for
the same. After receipt of the said
proposal by the office of the
Government Pleader, the same was
processes for the purpose of
drafting and accordingly First
Appeal was drafted.

¶34

3. The applicant say and submit that in the meanwhile letters were sent on 16.06.2011 for typed copies of judgment and award/order, difference chart, court fees, etc. Thereafter, after receiving appropriate copies and after making compliance for filing appeal, first appeal has been filed. However, there occurred some delay on account of above said procedural aspect of the matter, which Government machinery is required to follow, therefore, the delay is not deliberate or intentional, however, same is circumstantial one."

¶35

6 . Our High Court in the matter of Laxman Divekar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 745 held that Court has no power to arbitrarily condone the delay in the name of advancing substantial justice just because the applicant happen to be a Corporation

¶36

VSM/-

¶37

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶38

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶39

5 ca5180.13

¶40

7.The Apex Court in the matter of Damodar
Pillai Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., 2005 (5) ALL M.R.
961 (SC) held that hardship or injustice is not a
ground for extending the period of limitation.

¶41

8.Our High Court in the matter of Special
Land Acquisition Officer & Anr Vs. Jose Prezares De
Piedade Pinto, 2006 (2) Bom.C.R. 773 held that delay
caused due to movement of file from one table to
another cannot be a reason for condonation of delay.

¶42

9.The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik
Jalam Patil Vs. Ex.Engg.Jalgaon Medium Project and
Ors., 2008(6) BCR 513 held that unless and until
sufficient cause is shown, inordinate delay should
not be condoned.

¶43

10.The Apex Court in the matter of
Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour
Court, Bhilwara & Anr. 2009 (3) SCC Pg. 525 held
that while dismissing an Appeal on the ground of
limitation, going into the merits of the case is not
allowed.

¶44

11.The Apex Court in the matter of Oriental
Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat

¶45

VSM/-

¶46

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶47

6 ca5180.13

¶48

Industrial Development Corporation reported in 2010
(5) SCC 459, held that in the absence of sufficient
cause, Court should not condone the delay.

¶49

12.The Apex Court in the matter of Maniben Devraj
Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai
reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157, held that no premium
can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence
of State officers / machinery / agency /
instrumentality and condonation of delay caused by
such officer cannot be allowed as a matter of course
by accepting the plea that dismissal on the ground
of limitation will cause injury to public interest.

¶50

13.The Apex Court in the case of
B.Madhuri Gaud Vs. B.Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) SCC
693 held that if sufficient cause is not shown,
delay should not be condoned.

¶51

14.Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of
Esha Bhattacharajee Vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 2013 (12) S.C.C. 450 held
that if sufficient cause is not shown, application
for condonation of delay be rejected.

¶52

15.Considering the submissions made by the

¶53

VSM/-

¶54

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶55

 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶56

learned A.G.P., reasons disclosed in para nos.2 & 3
and the amount involved in all these mattes is very
meager, I am of the opinion that applicants have not
shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Hence all civil applications are rejected.

¶57

ca5180.13

¶58

VSM/-

The State of Maharashtra v. Trimbak Vithoba Adhav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Trimbak Vithoba Adhav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand Bhimashankar Mitkari, Died Thr. L.Rs. Suhilabai and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramnath Bhaurao Sonawane Vs Jalindar Gajaba Shinde and Ors.

Abhimah Dala Patil Vs Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Mhaware Dist Pune

Sayyad Ahmed Hussain Ali Hussain and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Municipal Council Osmanabad through Chief Officer Vs Shivajirao S/O Eknathrao Jagdale and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Trimbak Vithoba Adhav and Others