Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI SHANKAR JADHAVversusGRAM PANCHAYAT GULUMB THR. SARPANCH SWATI SHIVAJI MANE

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The revision application is allowed and the district court order condoning the delay is quashed.

Summary

The applicant, Shri Shivaji Shankar Jadhav, filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging a district court order that had condoned a 309‑day delay by the Gram Panchayat Gulumb in filing a regular appeal against a decree dated 9 February 2024. The revision argued that the respondent had not shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the district court had erred by considering the merits of the proposed appeal and by failing to examine the adequacy of the explanation offered. The court noted that the respondent was absent despite service of notice and had previously failed to appear in the original suit, indicating negligence. Applying the principles laid down in Pathapati Subba Reddy and rejecting the liberal approach cited in Esha Bhattacharjee, the court held that the district court’s discretion was exercised on untenable grounds and was perverse. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the condonation of delay was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Gram Panchayat Gulumb demonstrated sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to justify condoning a 309‑day delay in filing an appeal.
Whether the district court erred by considering the merits of the proposed appeal and by failing to apply the correct test for sufficient cause.
Whether the order condoning the delay is perverse and liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115, 96
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 3, 5

Subjects

civil revision
condonation of delay
Limitation Act
sufficient cause
perverse order
ex parte judgment
service of notice
CPC

Judgment

2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2026

Shri Shivaji Shankar Jadhav ]
Age – 73 Years, Occupation – Argiculture, ] …...Applicant
R/o. Gulumb, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. ]
Versus.
Gram Panchayat Gulumb ]
Through Sarpanch Swati Shivaji Mane ]
Age – 28 Years, Occupation – Housework, ]
R/o. Gulumb, Tal. Wai, Dist. Satara. ] …...Respondent

-----
Mr. Lalit S. Khamkar for Applicant.
None for the Respondent
-------

Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

Date : 24th September 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant.

2. Applicant, by this Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.”), has challenged the Order dated 25 th

September 2025 passed by the District Judge-1 at Wai (“District Court”) in

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 (“impugned Order”).

osk 1 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

3. On 10th September 2026, the following order was passed:

“1. Heard Mr. Lalit S. Khamkar.

2. By the present Civil Revision Application, the Applicant has assailed
the order dated 25th September, 2025, passed by the learned District
Judge-1, Wai, in Civil Misc. Application No.05 of 2025, whereby a
delay of 309 days in filing a Regular Civil Appeal by the Respondent
has been condoned.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 16th February 2026.

4. The Office Note dated 5th September, 2026 reads as follows:

"1) CRA All Office Objections removed.

2) Fresh Notice issued to sole Respondent, received duly served as per
Bailiff report dated 06/05/2026.

3) As per Court's order dated 16/02/2026 Adv. for Applicant has filed
affidavit on behalf of Applicant is kept at Flag "A"."

5. When this Application was called out, the name of the Respondent
Gram Panchayat Gulumb through Sarpanch Swati Shivaji Mane was
called out by the Court Sheristedar. Neither the Respondent nor any
Advocate for the Respondent were present before this Court, either
physically or through V.C. mode.

6. In view of the absence of the Respondent/Advocate for the
Respondent, this Civil Revision Application is Admitted and is
ordered to be listed for final hearing on 24th September, 2026, "First
on Board".

7. Issue notice to the Respondent for final disposal, returnable on 24th
September, 2026.

8. Mr. Lalit S. Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, requests

osk 2 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

for Hamdast. At his request, Hamdast is granted.

9. In addition to the regular mode of service, the Applicant shall serve
the Respondent by private service and file the service report in
respect thereof in the Registry of this Court on or before 21"
September, 2026.

10. Mr. Lalit S. Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits
that a spare copy of the paper-book will be furnished in the Registry
of this Court on or before 15th September, 2026, so as to enable
issuance of notice to the Respondent.

11. List this matter on 24th September, 2026 under the caption "First on
Board for Final Disposal".”

4. Pursuant to the order dated 10th September 2026, the Applicant has

filed an Affidavit of Service dated 19 th September 2026. Paragraphs 2 and 3

of the said Affidavit read as follows:

“2. I state that pursuant to the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court
dated 10th September 2026, I have duly served the notice of the
present matter upon the Respondent, Gram Panchayat Gulumb
through Sarpanch Swati Shivaji Mane via Speed Post.

3. I have filed the official Postal Receipt and the original India Post
Delivery Acknowledgement Report confirming successful service.”

5. By letter dated 19th September 2026, the Joint Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Wai, forwarded the Bailiff's Report, which states that the notice

issued by this Court was duly served on the Respondent.

osk 3 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

6. The Sheristedar called out the names of the Respondent, including the

name of the Sarpanch, as referred to in the cause title of this Application.

None appeared, either in person before the Court or through V.C. mode.

7. As this Application is listed today under the caption “ For Final

Disposal”, and by notice dated 10th September 2026, the parties were notified

that this Application would be finally heard on 24 th September 2026, Mr. Lalit

Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, insists on taking up the

Application for final disposal, as the service on the Respondent is complete.

8. The material facts relevant to the adjudication of this Revision

Application are that the Applicants (Plaintiffs) instituted Regular Civil Suit

No. 113 of 2022 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai

(“Trial Court”), against the Respondent (Defendant). The Trial Court decreed

Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022 by Judgment and Decree dated 9 th

February 2024.

9. Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that

although a Vakalatnama was filed by an Advocate for the Respondent in

Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022, neither a Written Statement was filed nor

did the said Advocate appear at the hearing. He submits that the Judgment

and Decree dated 9th February 2024 makes no reference to the Advocate's

name or to any representative of the Respondent. To clarify, he submits that

osk 4 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022 proceeded ex parte.

10. On 16th January 2025, the Respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous

Application No. 05 of 2025 before the District Court seeking condonation of a

delay of 309 days in filing an Appeal against the decree passed in Regular

Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022. Upon notice, the Applicants contested Civil

Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025.

11. By the impugned Order, the District Court condoned the delay of 309

days.

12. Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that

Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 does not disclose any reason

that could be termed sufficient cause. He submits that the so-called reason

offered by the Respondent in the application seeking condonation is that the

Respondent was unaware of the proceedings or of the disposal of Regular

Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022. He submits that the Respondent has attempted to

blame the Secretary of the Panchayat for non-communication of the decree to

the Respondent. He submits that the District Court merely observed that the

grievance raised by the Respondent in the Appeal needs to be considered on

merits after condoning the delay and that the Applicant's grievance can be

compensated by imposing costs of Rs.1,000/-.

osk 5 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

13. Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned Advocate for the Applicant, further submits

that the District Court has made no finding or observation on the most

relevant aspect of the matter, namely, whether the Respondent has made out

sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963. He therefore submits that the impugned order passed by the

District Court is illegal and perverse. He further submits that the impugned

order has caused grave and irreparable prejudice to the Applicants, who have

been diligently pursuing the litigation. He submits that the impugned Order

rewards the Respondents’ inaction, despite their gross negligence in pursuing

the case.

14. Despite service of notice on the Respondent, as referred to

hereinabove, the Respondent has remained absent. The Respondent's absence

in this Application indicates a lack of interest in opposing or contesting this

Revision Application.

15. Perused the records with the assistance of Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned

Advocate for the Applicant.

16. In matters relating to condonation of delay, a liberal approach is

adopted, provided the explanation for the delay falls within the expression

“sufficient cause”. However, such a liberal approach should not prejudice or

defeat valuable rights accrued in favour of the opponent due to the inaction

osk 6 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

or negligence of the party seeking condonation of delay. I am conscious that

the exercise of positive discretion in condoning delay normally ought not to

be disturbed unless the exercise of such discretion is on wholly untenable

grounds or arbitrary or perverse.

17. The points for consideration in this Revision Application are whether

the Respondent has shown “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 309

days in filing a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C., and whether

the impugned Order is perverse.

18. A perusal of the impugned Order does not indicate that the District

Court considered whether the cause shown by the Respondent in Civil

Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 falls within the expression

“sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to show

indulgence to the Respondent. Apparently, the District Court was impressed

by the grounds raised in the accompanying “ proposed” Appeal, filed along

with the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025. Para 10 of the

impugned order reads as follows:

“10] In the light of above mentioned legal principles, in case in hand,
opportunity needs to be granted to the aggrieved person i.e.
applicant-Grampanchayat, Gulumb for putting its grievance
before appellate Court. The reason is being that applicant has
raised various grounds in its appeal memo for being challenged

osk 7 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

impugned judgment and decree. Appeal can be decided on
merit only when, delay condonation application is allowed.”

19. To overcome the limitation period, the Respondent makes a vague and

bald statement that the Secretary post is transferable, that the Secretary did

not follow up on the case and that the Secretary did not inform the

Respondent of the passing of the Judgment and Decree in Regular Civil Suit

No. 113 of 2022. The Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 gives

no details of the Secretary holding the post during the subject period, nor

does it produce any documents to support the claim of the Secretary's

transfers, nor any action initiated by the Respondent against the Secretary for

dereliction of duty, if any. Pertinently, the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.

05 of 2025 contains no explanation for the Respondent's abandonment of

Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022, the absence of contest and non-

appearance despite service of summons.

20. The Respondent's lackadaisical approach to Court proceedings is

evident from their failure to contest the Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022

before the Trial Court. Further, their absence before this Court despite being

served with notice(s) supports the submission of Mr. Lalit Khamkar, learned

Advocate for the Applicant, that the Respondent is grossly negligent and

tends to take Court proceedings for granted.

osk 8 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

21. The reasons advanced by the Respondent in Civil Miscellaneous

Application No. 05 of 2025 are an afterthought and fanciful (see Esha

Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy &

Ors.1). The facts indicate that the Respondent was negligent in pursuing its

remedies. The reasons offered by the Respondent for the delay are not

convincing. These reasons fall short of showing any cause, let alone

“sufficient cause”, for condoning the delay. The legal maxim “ dura lex sed

lex”, which means “the law is hard, but it is the law”, stands attracted to the

facts of this case.

22. The impugned Order fails to recognise that the expression 'sufficient

cause' in section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be construed liberally

when negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is apparent. The District Court

overlooked the fact that the accompanying Appeal to the Civil Miscellaneous

Application No. 05 of 2025 was a “proposed appeal” and could not be

considered. The District Court thus erred in considering the merits of the

grounds challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2024 passed in

Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2022, as raised in the “ proposed appeal” and in

exercising its discretion to condone the delay. On both counts, the impugned

Order is perverse, unsustainable and warrants interference in the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court.

1 (2013) 12 SCC 649

osk 9 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

23. A useful reference to the enunciation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on

the law of limitation in paragraph Nos. 28 to 28.8 of the case Pathapati

Subba Reddy (died) vs. The Special Deputy Collector2 can be made:

“28. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as
aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

28.1. Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be
an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than
the right itself;

28.2. A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for
a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed
period of time;

28.3. The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

28.4. In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach,
justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be
kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial
law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

28.5. Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay
if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power
is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where
there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

28.6. Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not
mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court

2 (2024) 12 SCC 336

osk 10 of 11
2-CRA-22-2026 (C).docx

is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the
appeal;

28.7. Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning
the delay; and

28.8. Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the
delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”

24. For the aforesaid reasons, this Application is allowed in terms of

prayer clauses (A) and (B). The impugned order dated 25 th September 2025

passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 is quashed and set

aside. Consequently Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 05 of 2025 filed by

the Respondent stands dismissed.

25. No order as to costs.

26. Civil Revision Application No. 22 of 2026 is disposed of.

[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]

Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.29
18:41:05
+0530

osk 11 of 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…