SAKHARAM S/O RANGNATH KULKARNIversusSHIVAJI NAGORAO JADHAV AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:29436
                                                                              938-CA-3602-22.odt




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3602 OF 2022
                                              IN
                               FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3864 OF 2022

          Sakharam Rangnath Kulkarni                               ..APPLICANT
                VERSUS
          Shivaji Nagorao Jadhav and Others                        ..RESPONDENTS

                                               ....
          Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R.R. Kazi, Advocate for
          Applicant
          Mr. A.S. Yeole, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
          1 to 5 and 9
                                               ....

                                                      CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                      DATE : 17th JULY, 2026

          PER COURT :

          1.         This is an Application for condonation of the delay of 5423 days in

          filing the Appeal.


          2.         Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Application

          and record.


          3.         The Applicant claimed that he is a member of the Trust, and

          therefore, he is an affected person having the right to prefer the Appeal against

          the judgment and order dated 02nd January 2007. Accordingly, in the


                                              1 / 5
                                                                      938-CA-3602-22.odt



Application, particularly in Paragraph No.17, the Applicant cumulatively stated

reasons for causing the delay in filing the Appeal are as follows:-

            i.     No notice of meeting dated 14.08.1999 was served on the
                   applicant.
            ii.    Meetings of the Society are not held by the respondents.
            iii.   The applicant tried to resist mismanagement. However, he
                   was pressurized and harassed by transferring his wife.
            iv.    The Applicant has raised objection to subsequent change
                   reports and during the course of proceedings, the applicant
                   got the knowledge of the fact that, the present proceedings,
                   are required to be taken up.
            v.     The change report in question is allowed, without there
                   being any notice. The inquiry on change report has not taken
                   place
            vi.    In all the proceedings, the Change Report that has been
                   accepted without even notice to the applicant is raised as a
                   defence.
            vii.   All the affairs of trust are carried as if the same is a
                   proprietary concern of the respondent no. 1, and therefore, it
                   was difficult to get the documents and knowledge of the
                   proceedings.

            Accordingly, he urged that the delay be condoned.


4.          As against, learned counsel for the Respondents resisted the

Application on the ground that the Applicant and original Respondent No. 8

have no concern with the Trust. Applicant is neither a member of the Trust nor

                                      2 / 5
                                                                     938-CA-3602-22.odt



has any right in the Trust, and therefore, he has no right to prefer an Appeal.

But the Applicant is trying to interfere with the administration of the Trust and

is unnecessarily creating litigation. On that ground alone, the Application is

liable to be rejected. Alternatively, it is contended that the Applicant failed to

explain the huge delay of 5423 days in filing the Appeal. The Applicant has

not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, he urged the

rejection of the Application.


5.         Upon going through the reasons stated in para 17 of the

Application, at the outset, I do not find that the reasons stated in the

Application are sufficient to condone the huge delay of 5423 days. Apart from

that, the Applicant prima facie failed to point out how he is the interested

person to challenge the proceedings, when he is undoubtedly neither the

Trustee nor does he have concern with the Trust or any right to manage the

Trust property.


6.         Moreover, it reveals that the reasons stated for condonation of

delay are insufficient and vague. Therefore, the applicant has not made out

sufficient cause in the application, and the reasons mentioned in the

application are insufficient, inadequate, vague and unpalatable and far away

from the requirements of law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. So, I do

not find any sufficient cause or reasonable explanation in the application to

condone the delay.
                                    3 / 5
                                                                     938-CA-3602-22.odt



7.         Apart from that, for the sake of the applicant's contentions,

assuming that he is the affected person, in that eventuality, he failed to exhaust

the legal remedies available to him, which he was aware of but chose not to do

in time. That itself indicates that the Applicant was careless and negligent in

prosecuting the remedies available in law within the stipulated time.

“Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”, which means the law helps

those who are vigilant about their rights, not those who have knowledge and

neglect them. Thus, it appears that the Applicant has failed to explain the

inordinate delay nor given a satisfactory reason for the condonation of the

delay of 5423 days in filing the Appeal. As a consequence, the application is

sans merits.


8.         Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that condonation of delay cannot

be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court

whether to condone the delay or not. Despite going through the Application

for condonation of delay, I found that the reasons stated therein are not an

explanation but a lame excuse.        Therefore, no case for the exercise of

discretion has been set up.


9.         In light of the above discussion, the Applicant fails to explain the

inordinate delay of 5423 days caused in filing the Appeal. The reasons stated in

the Application are neither satisfactory nor reasonable to condone the delay.


                                    4 / 5
                                                                   938-CA-3602-22.odt




10.         Consequently, the Civil Application, being bereft of merits, stands

rejected.




                                                   ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )
SSD




                                   5 / 5