Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ANRversusGHUDUBHAI KHAJA HARANMARE DIED HIS LRS JEEBEDA GHUDUBHAI HARANMARE AND ORS
- Disposal
- Rejected at Admission stage
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the first appeal was not registered.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a civil application seeking condonation of a 244‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents opposed, arguing that the application lacked sufficient justification under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court examined the record and noted the absence of any documentary evidence of correspondence with the Law and Judiciary Department to explain the delay. Consequently, the court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained as required by Section 5. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the rejection of the registration of the first appeal and the dismissal of the stay application.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 244 days in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of documentary evidence.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- appeal registration
- stay application
- civil application
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19117
1 931 CA.4045.2011.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
931 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4045 OF 2011
IN FAST/5471/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
GHUDUBHAI KHAJA HARANMARE DIED HIS LRS
JEEBEDA GHUDUBHAI HARANMARE AND ORS
...
AGP for Applicant / State : Mr. S. B. Jadhav.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Manish P. Tripathi.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4046 OF 2011
IN FAST/5471/2011
...
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28th April, 2026.
P.C.:
1 Civil Application No.4045 of 2011 is filed for condonation of delay
of 244 days caused in filing the first appeal.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
application.
3 The learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the
application and submitted that no sufficient reason is given for
condonation of delay, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He,
therefore, prayed to reject the application.
2 931 CA.4045.2011.odt
4 On perusal of the application, it appears that the proposal
alongwith the certified copy of the judgment was sent for sanction and
that was received and for that delay was caused. However, in support
of the said contention, there is no any documentary evidence of
correspondence between the appellant and the State, particularly, the
Law and Judiciary Department. This shows that the delay is not
sufficiently explained, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. Therefore, the application cannot be allowed. The application
deserves to be rejected. Hence, the civil application for condonation of
delay caused in filing the appeal is rejected.
5 In view of rejection of the civil application for condonation of
delay, the registration of the first appeal is rejected.
6 In view of the above, the application for stay also stands
rejected.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…