Allowed

Executive Engineer, (Civil) Ehv Cccm Division - Msetcl and Ors. v. Mohan Narayan Mahajan and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2026IA/3681/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed two interim applications: one condoning delay (683 days) for filing a First Appeal, relying on liberal construction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and another seeking stay of execution. The First Appeal (ST) No. 14166/2021 concerning land acquisition for an MSEB sub-station was admitted, with contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application 14169/2021 for condonation of delay allowed; Interim Application 14170/2021 for stay allowed; First Appeal 14166/2021 admitted.

Executive Engineer, (Civil) Ehv Cccm Division - Msetcl and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/5

¶3

28 - FAST 14166 OF 2021.doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2026.06.04 11:30:43 +0530

¶6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14166/2021 ALONGWITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14169/2021 ALONGWITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14170/2021

¶10

¶11

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14166/2021

¶12

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶13

(CIVIL), EHV CCCM DIVISION – MSETCL & ORS.

¶14

….. APPELLANTS

¶15

¶16

MOHAN NARAYAN MAHAJAN & ORS.

¶17

….. RESPONDENTS

¶18

Adv. Shyam Dewani a/w. Adv. Dashang Doshi i/b. Adv. Ashok T. Gade & Adv. Riya J. for the Appellants/Applicants.

¶19

Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional G.P. for the State.

¶20

Ms.Amrita Kharkar a/w. Adv. Sayalee Bhosale i/b. Adv. P. H. Potnis for the Respondents.

¶21

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶22

DATE : 16 APRIL, 2026

¶23

P.C. :-

¶24

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14169/2021

¶25

This Interim Application is filed to condone delay of 683

¶26

days in filing the First Appeal.

¶27

This order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 8 May, 2026.

¶28

KVM

¶29

2/5

¶30

28 - FAST 14166 OF 2021.doc

¶31

Heard learned counsel for both sides and I have gone through the contents of the application and more particularly para no.2 which runs around six pages.

¶32

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:

¶33

“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.”

¶34

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

¶35

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:

¶36

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.

¶37

The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy or foreclose

¶38

This order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 8 May, 2026.

¶39

KVM

¶40

3/5

¶41

28 - FAST 14166 OF 2021.doc

¶42

the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

¶43

Bombay High Court in the judgment of Kamalbai

¶44

Narasaiyya Shrimal and Another Vs. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare reported

¶45

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

¶46

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:

¶47

“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.”

¶48

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.”

¶49

Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court and

¶50

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

¶51

made out to allow this interim application.

¶52

This order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 8 May, 2026.

¶53

KVM

¶54

4/5

¶55

28 - FAST 14166 OF 2021.doc

¶56

The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶57

clause (a) and disposed of accordingly.

¶58

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 14170/2021

¶59

This interim application has been filed by the acquiring body seeking stay to the execution of the Judgment and Order dated 7 May, 2019 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Land Acquisition Reference Petition No. 185 of 2001.

¶60

It is submitted before me that the entire award amount has been deposited with the Reference Court and the said amount has already been withdrawn by the claimant.

¶61

In view of the statement made by Mr. Ashok T. Gade, learned Counsel for the Appellants, interim application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶62

FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14166/2021

¶63

This First Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7 May, 2019 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

¶64

This order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 8 May, 2026.

¶65

KVM

¶66

5/5

¶67

28 - FAST 14166 OF 2021.doc

¶68

Pune in Land Acquisition Reference Petition No. 185 of 2001.

¶69