Allowed¶8

Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath v. Union of India Thr. Its. Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2026IA/1544/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; condonation of delay; 41 days' delay; First Appeal (ST) No. 33230/2023; Interim Application No. 1544/2024; Jawaher Singh v. Union of India & Anr.; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; sufficient cause; liberal construction; every day's delay explained pragmatically; 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; no reply/counter filed by respondents; Rajesh S. Patil, J.; interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 41 days in filing First Appeal (ST) No. 33230/2023, granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of Interim Application No. 1544/2024. ¶8

Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath vs Union of India Thr. Its. Secretary and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/3

¶3

23 - IA 1544 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed KANCHANVINODMAYEKAR by KANCHANVINODMAYEKARDate:2026.04.22 10:18:18 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1544/2024

¶8

IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.33230/2023

JAWAHER SINGH

….. APPLICANT

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

¶13

….. RESPONDENTS

¶14

Adv. Mukesh Gupta a/w. Adv. Girish Pandey (Thr. V.C.) for the Applicant.

¶15

Adv. Pranil Sonawane a/w. Adv. Janhavi Jadhav for the Respondent No.1.

¶16

Adv. Aman Marwah i/b. Trilegal for the Respondent No.2.

¶17

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶18

DATE : 21 APRIL, 2026

¶19

P.C. :-

¶20

This First Appeal and the interim application is filed in

¶21

December 2023 and the copy of the same is served on the respondents. However, there is no reply filed by the respondents opposing the present interim application.

¶22

This Interim Application is filed to condone delay of 41 days in filing the First Appeal.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone

¶24

KVM

¶25

2/3

¶26

23 - IA 1544 OF 2024.doc

¶27

through the contents of the application.

¶28

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:

¶29

“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.”

¶30

1. Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganesharaju (Dead)

¶31

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:

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai

¶36

KVM

¶37

3/3

¶38

23 - IA 1544 OF 2024.doc

¶39

Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported

¶40

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

¶41

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:

¶42

“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.”

¶43

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.”

¶44

Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court and

¶45

Bombay High Court in the above mentioned judgments and the facts narrated in the interim application, I am satisfied that the grounds are

¶46

made out to allow this interim application.

¶47

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶48

clause (a) and disposed of accordingly.

¶49

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath v. Union of India Thr. Its. Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawaher Singh S/O. Shri. Ramnath v. Union of India Thr. Its. Secretary and Anr.

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Atmaram Travels and 2 Ors.

Ajinkya Ashok Keskar vs Aboli Ajinkya Keskar

Damodar Mahadeo Patil vs Motiram Mahadeo Patil

Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. vs Ksl and Industries Ltd.

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Abdul Motin Wajis Ali (Borrower) and Anr.

Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd.) vs Pooja Yogesh Varma