Bombay High Court
YESHWANT RUPCHAND KOLHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the delay could not be condoned as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause.
Summary
The petitioner, Yeshwant Rupchand Kolhe, filed a review application on 25 January 2026 seeking to overturn an order dated 22 December 2017, but the filing was delayed by 2,936 days. The court was asked to condone this inordinate delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Basawaraj & another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 4 SCC 81, the judge emphasized that condonation requires a demonstration of ‘sufficient cause’, meaning genuine and compelling reasons, and that negligence cannot be excused. The petitioner’s explanations were found to be inadequate and failed the test of sufficient cause. Consequently, the court held that the delay could not be condoned. The civil application for condonation of delay was therefore rejected, and the review application dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 2,936 days in filing a review application can be condoned.
- What constitutes ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning delay under judicial discretion.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- review petition
- sufficient cause
- judicial discretion
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37332
90
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3290 OF 2026
IN
RAST/3824/2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1728 OF 2007
YESHWANT RUPCHAND KOLHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kiran M. Nagarkar
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. P. D. Patil
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 18.08.2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard.
2. Applicant seeks review of order dated 22.12.2017.
The application is presented on 25.01.2026 for condoning delay
of 2936 days in filing the Review Application.
3. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that judicial
discretion cannot be stretched to excuse prolonged delays in
absence of sufficient cause. As such, an inordinate delay, which is
rather unexplained ought not to be condoned. As has been held by
90
-2-
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & another Vs.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 4 SCC 81:
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the
court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain
the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which
means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the court within
limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or
for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and
circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could
be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by
imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is
to be decided only within the parameters laid down by
this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In
case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant
to approach the court on time condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition
whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation
of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
The expression ‘sufficient cause’ implies genuine and
compelling reasons. Equity assists those are vigilant and not
negligent.
90
-3-
4. Thus, in absence of sufficient reasons, I am of the
considered opinion that reasons put-forth by the applicants
utterly fail to meet the test of ‘sufficient cause’.
5. Accordingly, the reasons assigned seeking
condonation of delay cannot be regarded as plausible. Given the
facts and circumstances, the application does not warrant
consideration.
6. Resultantly, the Civil Application stands rejected.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
marathe
Checking your session…