Bombay High Court

SUGANDHABAI DASHRATH BHOSLE DECEASED THR RAMESH DASHRATH BHOSLEversusMANISHA BALASAHEB HALNOR AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The delay of 130 days is condoned as it is not deliberate or intentional and substantial justice prevails.

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 130‑day delay in filing a second appeal. The court examined the principle of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, relying on the Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987). It held that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that substantial justice outweighs technical rigidity. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay. A notice was issued to the respondents for the second appeal, to be returned on 25‑Nov‑2026.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 130 days in filing a second appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Whether the applicant’s delay constitutes "sufficient cause" as interpreted by Supreme Court jurisprudence

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5

Subjects

Limitation Act
Section 5
condonation of delay
second appeal
substantial justice
civil procedure

Judgment

                                             977 CA NO. 10343 OF 2026.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
          977 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10343 OF 2026
                     IN SAST/27009/2026

 Sugandhabai Dashrath Bhosle Deceased Thr Ramesh Dashrath
                            Bhosle
                           VERSUS
             Manisha Balasaheb Halnor And Others
                              ...
Ms. Lomte Ashwini Annasaheb, Advocate for Applicant
                             ….

                   CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                      DATE : 30.09.2026
PER COURT :-

1.          Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant.

2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 130

days caused in filing the Second Appeal.

3.          Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein

and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji,

1987 AIR (SC) 1353, in which it is held that expression “sufficient

cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, is required to

be construed liberally and in a manner that enables the Court to

advance substantial justice by deciding matters on merits. The

Court further held that the expression “every day’s delay must be

explained” does not warrant a pedantic approach and that the

                                                                 1 of 2
                                    (( 2 ))       977 CA NO. 10343 OF 2026


principles of limitation should be applied in a rational, common-sense

and pragmatic manner. Where substantial justice and technical

considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial

justice deserves to be preferred, the application deserves to be

allowed in the interest of justice as the delay is neither deliberate nor

intentional. Hence, the following order:

                               ::ORDER::

a.         Civil Application is allowed.

b.         The delay of 130 days caused in filing the Second Appeal is

condoned.


SECOND APPEAL

1.          Heard.

2.          Issue    notice   to   the     Respondents,     returnable       on

25.11.2026.



                                         [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                    2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…