The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, Raigad v. Mahamad Daud Patankar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Momina Mahamad Patankar and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2025IA/6440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; sufficient cause; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; liberal construction; every day's delay explained; acquiring body; First Appeal (ST) No. 25315 of 2022; Interim Application No. 6440 of 2024; Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Mst. Katji 1987 SC 1353; S. Ganesharaju v. Narasamma (2013) 11 SCC 341; Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal v. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare 2007 (1) MH. L.J. 807; Bombay High Court; Rajesh S. Patil J.; delay of 4 years and 119 days condoned; prayer clause (b).

What did the court decide?

Delay of 4 years and 119 days in filing the First Appeal condoned; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and disposed of. ¶42-43

The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, Raigad vs Mahamad Daud Patankar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Momina Mahamad Patankar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/3

¶3

25 - IA 6440 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHANVINODMAYEKAR VINODMAYEKARDate:2025.09.24 10:31:28 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6440 OF 2024 IN

¶8

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 25315 OF 2022

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, Kolad Division, Taluka Roha, District Raigad

¶10

….. Applicant

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Mahamad Daud Patankar (since deceased through legal heirs) Momina Mahamad Patankar & Ors.

¶13

….. Respondents

¶14

Mr.Mahesh Pawar i/b. Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 – State.

¶15

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 20 SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

This Interim Application is filed by the acquiring body to condone delay of 4 years and 119 days in filing the First Appeal.

¶18

The respondents have been duly served. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and respondent nos. 4 and 5 and I have gone through the contents of the application and more particularly para no.5 which runs around three pages.

¶19

Supreme Court in the judgment of Collector, Land

¶20

KVM

¶21

2/3

¶22

25 - IA 6440 OF 2024.doc

¶23

Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katji and Others reported

¶24

in 1987 SC 1353 , has held that:

¶25

“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.”

¶26

Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead) through Lrs V. Narasamma (Dead) through Lrs reported in (2013) 11

¶27

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:

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai

¶31

Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported

¶32

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

¶33

KVM

¶34

3/3

¶35

25 - IA 6440 OF 2024.doc

¶36

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 application is thus:

¶37

“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.”

¶38

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.”

¶39

According to me, considering the submissions made in the

¶40

Interim Application and the law laid down in above judgments, a case

¶41

is made out to allow the Interim Application.

¶42

1. The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶43

clause (b) and disposed of accordingly.

¶44

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, Raigad v. Mahamad Daud Patankar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Momina Mahamad Patankar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Raigad Irrigation, Raigad v. Mahamad Daud Patankar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Smt. Momina Mahamad Patankar 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

Ganpat Dattatraya Shinde vs Thakaram Baban Padwal

Ganpat Dattatraya Shinde vs Thakaram Baban Padwal

Sarika Sunil Kamble vs Sunil Narayan Kamble

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Atmaram Travels and 2 Ors.

Vistra Itcl (India) Ltd. and Anr. vs Suyog Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shahnawaz Ahmed S/O Enayat Waris vs Union of India