Bombay High Court

DATTATRAY SHANKAR PATILversusSHANKAR S/O DHONDU PATIL (DEACEASED ABATED) AND ORS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The delay of 3247 days in filing the second appeal is condoned as it is not deliberate and sufficient cause is found under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicant sought condonation of a 3247‑day delay in filing a second appeal, alleging lack of proper legal advice and financial hardship. 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. It held that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that substantial justice outweighs technical limitation concerns. Consequently, the court allowed the civil application and condoned the delay. The matter was then listed for further proceedings on the second appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 3247 days in filing a second appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Whether the applicant’s reasons constitute "sufficient cause" and are not deliberate

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5

Subjects

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

Judgment

                                              955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2025
                      IN SAST/14278/2024

                    Dattatray Shankar Patil
                           VERSUS
     Shankar S/o Dhondu Patil (deaceased Abated) And Ors
                               ...
Ms. Vaishali P. Dama h/f Mr. Prashant Dama, Advocate for
Applicant
                            WITH
      SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 14278 OF 2024WITH
           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7779 OF 2025 IN
                   SAST/14278/2024WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2025 IN
                   SAST/14278/2024WITH
    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6317 OF 2025 IN CA/169/2025
                              ….

                    CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                      DATE : 23.09.2026
PER COURT :-

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2025

1.         Heard.

2.         This is an application for condonation of delay of 3247

days caused in filing the Second Appeal.

3.         Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the

delay has been caused due to the Applicant not receiving proper

legal advice and also due to his poor economic condition. She

submitted that the Applicant received proper advice recently and


                                                                1 of 3
                                     (( 2 ))        955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025


thereafter applied for a certified copy. She prayed to condone the

delay in the interest of justice as it is not deliberately caused.


4.           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 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. Further, in order to decide the lis finally on merits, 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 3247 days caused in filing the Second Appeal
           is condoned.



                                                                     2 of 3
                                   (( 3 ))        955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025


SECOND APPEAL

1.         Heard.

2.         Issue    notice   to   the     respondents,   returnable        on

28.10.2026.

3.         Call for Record and Proceedings.




                                        [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                  3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…