The High Court rejected an application by the State of Maharashtra for condonation of a 1416-day delay in filing a First Appeal. The Court held the applicant failed to show sufficient cause, citing Apex Court precedents that hardship or administrative difficulties are not grounds for condoning inordinate delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
G.A.Ghule [P.A.]
1/4 ca 9818.10 in fast 1290.1995 (Sr.No.4.) (Order III in ca 9821).sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Application No.9821 Of 2010. In
First Appeal (Stamp) No.1292 Of 1995.
The State of Maharashtra :: Applicant.
V e r s u s
Dwarkabai Motiram Patil & Ors. :: Respondents.
Appearance =>
Mr. B.L. Dhas, A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra.
None present for the Respondent.
CORAM : K.K. Tated, J. DATE : 27th August, 2014.
Per Court :-
Heard Mr. B.L. Dhas, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra. Though the respondents are duly served no one appeared on behalf of them, when matter is called out.
[2] This Application is preferred by original Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra for condonation of delay of 1416 days caused in preferring the First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16th October, 1990 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, in L.A.R. No.339 Of 1989, by which the reference court awarded additional sum of Rs.46,175/-
2/4 ca 9818.10 in fast 1290.1995 (Sr.No.4.) (Order III in ca 9821).sxw
[3] Mr. Dhas, the learned A.G.P. submits that, papers of the present matters were misplaced in the office of the Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad and therefore, there is delay in preferring the First Appeal. He further submits that because of the administrative difficulty, such as, inadequacy of staff and additional burden because of attachment of Ahmednagar and Jalgaon Districts to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, matter could not be attended well in time.
[4] In support of his contentions, the learned A.G.P. for the State relied on paragraph No.3 of the Civil Application, which reads thus :-
[5] Mr. B.L. Dhas, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra submits that in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay caused in preferring the First Appeal. He further submits that, if delay is not condoned, an irreparable loss and injury will be caused to them. Hence, he prayed that, delay caused in preferring the First Appeal be condoned.
[6] I have heard the learned A.G.P. for the State at length. In the present proceedings,
3/4 ca 9818.10 in fast 1290.1995 (Sr.No.4.) (Order III in ca 9821).sxw
[i] Reference Court has passed the Judgment and Award, on :-
16/10/1990.
[ii] Appellant filed an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and award, on :-
17/11/1990.
[iii] Certified copies were ready for delivery on :-
07/01/1991.
[iv] Office of Govt.PLeader, High Court received sanction from L&J Deptt. for preferring F.A.on :-
17/01/1991.
[v] Applicant preferred present F.A. In the High Court on :-
17/01/1995.
[7] Bare reading of Civil Application shows that, the applicant has kept blanks in paragraph Nos. 2 and 5 about the dates. The reasons disclosed by the applicant in paragraph No.3 does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The applicant has not explained the delay from 17th January, 1991 when office of the Government Pleader received Sanction from the L&J Department, till preferring the First Appeal on 17th January, 1995.
[8] It will be useful to cite relevant authoritative pronouncement/s of the High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.
[i] The Apex Court in the matter of Damodar Pillai V/s. The South Indian Bank Ltd, 2005(5) All.M.R. 961 (S.C.) held that hardship or injustice is not a ground for extending the period of limitation.
[ii] The Apex Court in the matter of Pundlik Jalam Patil V/s. Ex.Engg. Jalgaon Medium Project and Ors, 2008(6) Bom.C.R.,
4/4 ca 9818.10 in fast 1290.1995 (Sr.No.4.) (Order III in ca 9821).sxw
513 held that unless and until sufficient cause is shown, inordinate delay should not be condoned.
[iv] The Apex Court in the matter of The Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited V/s. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in 2010 (5) S.C.C. 459, held that in the absence of sufficient cause, Court should not condone the delay.
[vi] The Apex Court in the case of B.Madhuri Gaud V/s. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) S.C.C., 693 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, delay should not be condoned.
[viii] Recently, the Apex Court in the matter of Esha Bhattacharajee V/s. The Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2013(12) S.C 450 held that if sufficient cause is not shown, application for condonation of delay is rejected.
Considering the facts as stated herein-above, and the authoritative pronouncements of the the High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that Applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of 1416 days delay caused in preferring the First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated 16th October, 1990 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, in L.A.R. No.339 Of 1989.
[9] Hence, Civil Application is rejected.
(K.K. TATED, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether commensurability of delay with unjust enrichment/suffering is required to condone delay in preferred appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Damodar Pillai V/s. The South Indian Bank LtdReferred¶36
Damodar Pillai V/s. The South Indian Bank Ltd, 2005(5) All.M.R. 961 (S.C.)
Pundlik Jalam Patil V/s. Ex.Engg. Jalgaon Medium Project and OrsReferred¶37
Pundlik Jalam Patil V/s. Ex.Engg. Jalgaon Medium Project and Ors, 2008(6) Bom.C.R. 513 · Who else cites this
The Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited V/s. The Gujarat Industrial Development CorporationReferred¶40
The Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited V/s. The Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, reported in 2010 (5) S.C.C. 459
B.Madhuri Gaud V/s. B. Damodar ReddyReferred¶41
B.Madhuri Gaud V/s. B. Damodar Reddy, 2012 (12) S.C.C., 693 · Who else cites this
Esha Bhattacharajee V/s. The Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar AcademyReferred¶42
Esha Bhattacharajee V/s. The Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2013(12) S.C 450
State of Maharashtra
Dwarkabai Motiram Patil & Ors.
K.K. Tated
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
