The Executive Engineer, Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad vs Shri. Manohar Ramchandra Mehatar and Ors.

Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREEKISHOR KISHOR MOREDate: also gone through the contents of the Interim Application. MORE 2025.09.26 11:57:46 +0530

¶20

Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported in 1987 SC 1353 , has held that:

¶21

Rajshree

¶22

2/3

¶23

52-IA-10563-2024.odt

¶24

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

¶25

Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341 , more specifically, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, of the said judgment held that a liberal construction to the cause of delay should be given. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

¶26

“12. The expression “sufficient cause” as appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has to be given a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Unless the respondents are able to show malafides in not approaching the court within the period of limitation, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. The trend of the courts while dealing with the matter with regard to condonation of delay has tilted more towards condoning delay and directing the parties to contest the matter on merits, meaning thereby that such technicalities have been given go-by.

¶27

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.”

¶28

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported

¶29

in 2007 (1) MH. L.J. 807 , paragraph Nos.13 and 15 has held:

¶30

The factual position is manifestly clear on bare perusal of the application for condonation filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge. The only relevant statement in the

Rajshree

3/3

52-IA-10563-2024.odt

application is thus:

“The delay caused in preferring the appeal is of six months. The caused delay is not intentional one. The appellants are poor and helpless persons. If the delay is not condoned appellant may cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The suit was for recovery of possession and present appellants are tenants. If the delay is not condoned then appellants will become shelterless.”

¶36

The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from section of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. I do not find any such “sufficient cause” stated in the application and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for.”

¶37

Considering the law laid down in the above Judgments

¶38

and considering the averments made in the Interim Application, I am

¶39

convinced that the Interim Application is required to be allowed

¶40

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶41

clause (b) and disposed of accordingly.

¶42

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

The Executive Engineer, Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad v. Shri. Manohar Ramchandra Mehatar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad v. Shri. Manohar Ramchandra Mehatar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kunal Suresh Gosavi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray @ Appa Dnyandev Bhise vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dattatray Mahadeo Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajni Tahil Bhambhawani vs Harish Kumar Narang

Atharv Paresh Parkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Carl David Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India