Writ petition challenging the Appellate Court's order condoning a 1,220-day delay in filing an appeal. The High Court quashed the condonation order, finding the reasons unsubstantiated and the lower court's findings perverse.
Rule made absolute, impugned order of the Appellate Court quashed, writ petition disposed of.
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.
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8094 OF 2024
Digitally signed bySHABNOOR SHABNOORAYUB AYUBPATHAN PATHAN Date: 2024.08.28 10:42:34 +0530
Maruti Krishnaji Shinde & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Maruti Anna Ghatge … Respondent
Mr. Chetan G. Patil i/by Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for petitioner.
Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar for respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2024
P.C.:
1
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.
2
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. This order is the subject matter of the present petition.
“ 21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:
21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justiceoriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and
3
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the
4
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.
21.12 (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
21.13 (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”
5
22-wp-8094-2024-Final.doc
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the condonation of delay in filing a civil appeal should be set aside for lack of sufficient cause and perverse findings on record.
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in finding the respondent was residing in Mumbai and undergoing medical treatment without corroborating evidence.
Whether the reasons for delay, including medical treatment and COVID-19, substantiate sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.Applied¶24
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Maruti Krishnaji Shinde & Ors.
Maruti Anna Ghatge
AMIT BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
