Disposed¶19

Pandurang Motiram Waghmare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2025CA/13313/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 674 days; section 5 of the Limitation Act; Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another (1981) 2 SCC 788; mistake of counsel/lawyer; miscommunication from earlier counsel; land acquisition reference LAR No. 29 of 2010; award dated 30.03.2015; Reference Court; Aurangabad Bench; appeal to be registered and listed on 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 674 days in lodging the appeal condoned; Office directed to register the appeal and place it before the court on 14.11.2025 for further action. ¶19

Pandurang Motiram Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:27622

¶2

905ca13313-17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13313 OF 2017 IN FAST/16100/2017

¶5

Pandurang Motiram Waghmare And Ors VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

¶7

Mr. Agrawal Pavankumar S., Advocate for Applicant Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondents State Mr. S. W. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶8

CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 3rd October, 2025

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

Heard Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned AGP for the respondents-State and Mr. Munde, the learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶11

By the present application, the applicants/appellants pray for condonation of delay of 674 days caused while lodging the appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No. 29 of 2010.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants canvassed that due to miscommunication from the earlier counsel, the applicants could not file the appeal within stipulated time and delay of 674 days caused, which is bonafide and substantial

¶13

Per contra, learned AGP and learned counsel for Respondent No.3 Acquiring Body strongly opposed the application on the ground

¶14

905ca13313-17

¶15

that no sufficient explanation has been given by the applicants for condoning the delay of 674 days and prayed for rejection of the application.

¶16

Needless to say that litigant should not be deprived from receiving substantial justice merely on technical ground and if the delay is explained properly, in that event, discretionary power left with the court under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

¶17

In the case in hand, the applicants assigned the reason that due to miscommunication from the previous counsel, they could not file the appeal within stipulated period. As per the ratio laid down in case of Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another (1981) 2 SCC 788, litigant should not be suffered for the mistake of the lawyer. Therefore, considering the ground set out in the present case, the delay of 674 days caused while lodging the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Office to register the appeal and place before this court on 14.11.2025 for further action.

¶19

The Civil Application is disposed of.

¶20

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )

¶21

JPChavan

Pandurang Motiram Waghmare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Motiram Waghmare and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Vijay Atar and Others Vs Gurumitsing Obhan and Another

Abdul Raheman Massom Ali and Others vs Maharashtra State Board of Wakf Thr Chief Executive Officer at Panchakki Aurangabad and Others

Vicky Alias Aniket Ramesh Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Asmita Abhijit Udar vs Abhijit Bhagwat Udar

Sonali Rajesh Khandare vs Rajesh Gauttam Khandare

Chetali Bhushan Suryawanshi vs Bhushan Namdeo Suryawanshi