Bombay High Court

GANPATRAO YASHWANTRAO DESHMUKH L.RS. SAHEBRAO GANPATRAO DESHMUKH and OTHERS.versusPURUSHOTTAM SHRINIWAS JOSHI L.RS. BHARATBAI L.RS. PADMAKAR AND OTHERS

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that the delay was not deliberately caused, thereby condoning the delay, setting aside abatement, and permitting the legal representatives of the deceased parties to be brought on record.

Summary

The appellants filed multiple civil applications seeking condonation of delay, setting aside abatement, and permission to bring the legal representatives of deceased parties on record. The court examined whether the delays—ranging from 673 to 4,967 days—were deliberately caused, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in M.D.A. Chaudhary v. Kartar Chand (2025). The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing insufficient justification under the Limitation Act. The bench found that the delays were not intentional and, in the interest of justice, allowed the applications, condoned the delays, set aside any abatement, and granted permission to include the deceased parties’ representatives, subject to a two‑week amendment deadline. Costs were stipulated for non‑compliance, and the civil applications were disposed of accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the civil applications can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the abatement of the proceedings should be set aside.
Whether the legal representatives of deceased parties may be brought on record.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act — s. 5

Subjects

condonation of delay
Limitation Act
abatement
legal representatives
deceased party
civil application
Supreme Court precedent
interest of justice

Judgment

1 903 sa.529.92.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
903 SECOND APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1992

GANPATRAO YASHWANTRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PURUSHOTTAM SHRINIWAS JOSHI
...
Advocate for Appellant : Ms. S. S. Choudhary.
Adv. for Respdt. No.1/1-a : Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, h/f Mr. A. D. Kawre.
...

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5604 OF 1998
IN SA/529/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4577 OF 1992
IN SA/529/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3040 OF 2024
IN SA/529/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 994 OF 1995
IN SA/529/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2728 OF 2007
IN SA/529/1992
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3257 OF 2024
IN SA/529/1992
...

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th August, 2026.

P.C.:

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3257 OF 2024

1 This application is filed for condonation of delay, setting aside
abatement and permission to bring the legal representatives of
deceased appellant No.1-B-v / Nilesh Sathe on record.
2 903 sa.529.92.odt

2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
application. There is delay of 4967 days caused in filing this
application.

3 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay is
not deliberately caused. It is therefore, prayed to allow the application.

4 The learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the
application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to condone
the delay, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He lastly
prayed to reject the application.

5 On perusal of the application, it appears that the delay is not
deliberately caused. Therefore, to decide the lis finally on merits and
in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
case of M. D. A. Chaudhary Vs. Kartar Chand and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0877/2025, the application deserves to be allowed, in the
interest of justice, as the delay is not deliberately caused.

6 For the reasons stated in the application, the application
deserves to be allowed as the delay is not caused deliberately and
intentionally. Hence, the delay is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set
aside. Permission is granted to bring the legal representatives of
deceased appellant No.1-B-v / Nilesh Sathe on record. Necessary
amendment be carried out, within a period of two weeks from today.
The civil application stands disposed of.

7 It is made clear that if the amendment is not carried out within
the stipulated period, then the applicants will require to deposit costs of
Rs.2000/- with the Advocates Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co-
3 903 sa.529.92.odt

operative Society, High Court Premises, Aurangabad.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3040 OF 2024

8 This application is filed for condonation of delay, setting aside
abatement and permission to bring the legal representatives of
deceased appellant No.1-B / Sindhubai Sathe and appellant No.3 /
Venkatrao Deshmukh on record.

9 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
application. There is delay of 1737 and 673 days caused in filing this
application.

10 The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay is
not deliberately caused. It is therefore, prayed to allow the application.

11 The learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the
application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to condone
the delay, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He lastly
prayed to reject the application.

12 On perusal of the application, it appears that the delay is not
deliberately caused. Therefore, to decide the lis finally on merits and
in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
case of M. D. A. Chaudhary Vs. Kartar Chand and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0877/2025, the application deserves to be allowed, in the
interest of justice, as the delay is not deliberately caused.

13 For the reasons stated in the application, the application
deserves to be allowed as the delay is not caused deliberately and
intentionally. Hence, the delay is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set
4 903 sa.529.92.odt

aside. Permission is granted to bring the legal representatives of
deceased appellant No.1-B / Sindhubai Sathe and appellant No.3 /
Venkatrao Deshmukh on record. Necessary amendment be carried
out, within a period of two weeks from today. The civil application
stands disposed of.

14 It is made clear that if the amendment is not carried out within
the stipulated period, then the applicants will require to deposit costs of
Rs.2000/- with the Advocates Chambers Allottees Maintenance Co-
operative Society, High Court Premises, Aurangabad.

SECOND APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1992

15 The learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant
No.1-(a) / Sahebrao Deshmukh has died. She seeks time for taking
steps to bring the legal representatives of appellant No.1-(a) on record.

16 The learned counsel for the appellants is also directed to take
instructions as to which of the appellants or respondents have died.

17 List the second appeal on 1st September, 2026.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…