Bombay High Court

1.SOPAN GOPAL CHAUDHARI DIED THR LRS 1A.SHOBHNA AND OTHERSversusMADHAVRAO G. CHAUDHARI DIED THR 1A INDUMATI DIED 1B KUNDAN DIED 1C ALKA DIED 1D PRATIBHA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The application is allowed; the delay is condoned, the abatement is set aside, and permission is granted to bring the deceased respondent’s legal representatives on record.

Summary

The applicant sought condonation of a 3005‑day delay in filing a civil application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record and also requested that an abatement be set aside. The respondents opposed the application. The court examined the liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (1987 AIR SC 1353), which emphasizes substantial justice over technicalities. Finding that the delay was not deliberate and that justice required relief, the court allowed the application. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the abatement was set aside, and permission was granted to bring the deceased respondent’s legal representatives on record, with an amendment deadline of two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 3005 days can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Whether the abatement of the civil application should be set aside
Whether the legal representatives of a deceased respondent may be brought on record after such delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5

Subjects

limitation
condonation of delay
abatement
legal representatives
civil procedure
substantial justice

Judgment

                                                958 CA NO. 11354 OF 2026.odt


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            958 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11354 OF 2026
                         IN SA/583/2007

  1.sopan Gopal Chaudhari Died Thr Lrs 1a.shobhna And Others
                            VERSUS
 Madhavrao G. Chaudhari Died Thr 1a Indumati Died 1b Kundan
           Died 1c Alka Died 1d Pratibha And Another
                               ...
Mr. Govind Omprakash Wattamwar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. Subedh Shah h/f Mr. P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for
Respondents
                             WITH
              SECOND APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2007
                              ….

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

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11354 OF 2026

1.          Heard learned Advocates for both sides.


2.          This is an application for condonation of 3005 days

delay caused in filing the Civil Application for bringing the legal

representatives of deceased Applicant (i.e., Respondent No.1 in

Second Appeal) on record as well as for setting aside abatement

and permission to bring the L.Rs. of deceased Respondent No.1 on

record.

3.          Learned    Advocates   for   the   respondents       strongly

opposed the application.

                                                                    1 of 3
                                         (( 2 ))     958 CA NO. 11354 OF 2026



4.               Perused the application. Considering the reasons stated

therein and 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 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.        In view of the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice,

as the delay has not been deliberately caused. Hence, the following

order:

                                 ::ORDER::

         a.      The application is allowed.

         b.      The delay of 3005 days caused in filing the
         Civil     Application     for    bringing     the      legal
         representatives of Respondent No.1 on record is


                                                                        2 of 3
                                         (( 3 ))     958 CA NO. 11354 OF 2026


           condoned.

           c.     The abatement is set aside.

           d.     Permission to bring the legal representatives of
           of deceased Respondent No.1 on record is granted.
           The amendment be carried out within a period of two
           weeks from today. If the amendment is not carried
           out within the stipulated period, the Appellant shall
           be liable to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the office of the
           High     Court    Legal    Services     Sub-Committee,
           Aurangabad.



           .      List the Appeal on 14.10.2026.




                                           [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                       3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…