Bombay High Court
THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. Z.P. OSMANABADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Rejected at Admission stage
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The Court held that the delay was not condonable and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, as the acquiring body, filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 1,053‑day delay in filing a first appeal against a judgment and award dated 3 May 2016. The applicant argued that the delay was not intentional but resulted from administrative procedures required to gather documents and make decisions. The High Court observed that the pleadings offered no specific dates or concrete reasons to justify such a prolonged delay and noted the absence of any substantive explanation of the alleged ‘due process’. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivamma (Dead) By L.Rs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 SCC OnLine 1969), the Court emphasized that administrative lethargy cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay. Applying the principles of the Limitation Act and Section 100 of the CPC, the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a plausible cause and therefore rejected the condonation application and the associated appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 1,053 days in filing an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can be condoned on the ground of administrative delay.
- Whether the acquiring body’s claim of ‘due process’ constitutes sufficient cause under the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- limitation period
- administrative lethargy
- Section 100 CPC
- acquiring body
- civil procedure
- judicial time
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11789
24-CA-11997-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11997 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 18643 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer
Minir Irrigation Division,
Z.P. Osmanabad ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Others ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. R.D. Raut, Advocate for applicant
Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 09th MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1053 days
occurred in filing the appeal at the instance of acquiring body, challenging the
judgment and award dated 03rd May, 2016 passed in L.A.R. No. 2 of 2010 by
the Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant / acquiring body contended that
the delay caused is not intentional but bonafide. The delay caused in filing
the appeal is duly explained, and therefore, prays for allowing the application.
1 / 4
24-CA-11997-21.odt
3. At this juncture it is necessary to reproduce the pleadings made in
the application as follows :-
“5] Being aggrieved dissatisfied by judgment and award passed
by the learned reference Court, the appellant approached to
this Hon’ble High Court and thereby challenge legality,
validity and correctness of the said award.
6] Applicants submit that, the learned Civil Court, Senior
Division, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad has passed the
judgment and decree in L.A.R. No 2/2010 on dated
03.05.2016. The authority has taken a decision to challenge
the said judgment and decree before the Hon’ble High Court
by way of filing First Appeal. The appellant is the acquiring
body and contested party to take the decision there is a due
process. Therefore, the delay in filing of First Appeal but it
is not intentional the delay is caused on the count of
administrative time to take decisions and collecting
necessary documents information and certified copies in the
present case. The delay is 1053 days.”
4. Perusal of the pleadings would reveal that no specific dates are
given which could have given the foundation to the Court to arrive at proper
conclusion. The only reason advanced is the applicant is the acquiring body
and contested party, to take the decision there is a due process. What is the
due process is conspicuously silent in the application.
5. At this juncture it is necessary to mention here that the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Shivamma (Dead) By L.Rs. Vs. Karnataka Housing
Board 2025 SCC OnLine 1969, has observed thus -
2 / 4
24-CA-11997-21.odt
“261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the
High Court deserves to be set aside. Before we proceed to close
this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear
that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a
sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey
an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not
be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper
case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery
is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained
vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is
famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional
courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State
agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from
pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.
262. The High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such
callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and
should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of
delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for
State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be
cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants
cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the
fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later
stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put
all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with
inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the
courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals
under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already
limited to questions of law.
263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping
scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of
judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited
means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its
elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations
deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a
party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to
contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present
3 / 4
24-CA-11997-21.odt
case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves
such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our
obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to
post to seek justice.
264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and
apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the
process of law.”
6. It is undisputed that in the Limitation Act, delay can be condoned
if sufficient cause or plausible explanation is given. On having gone through
the pleadings made, I find that no plausible explanation or reason is advanced
for condoning the delay. Just because the appeal is preferred by the acquiring
body, no separate treatment can be awarded.
7. In that view of the matter, following order is passed :-
ORDER
Civil application is rejected. Consequently, appeal on stamp number is also
rejected.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD
4 / 4
Checking your session…