Bombay High Court
GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE.versusTHE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANR.
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court condoned the delay in filing the cross‑objections, finding it was not deliberately caused.
Summary
The petitioners, Dattu Yadavrao Mane (deceased) and Geetabai Eknath Chaugale, filed applications seeking condonation of a 4,765‑day delay in filing cross‑objections in two civil suits against the State of Maharashtra. The State, represented by the Collector, and the acquiring body opposed the condonation, arguing that no sufficient reason existed for such a long delay. The Court examined the submissions and found that the delay was not deliberately caused. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay, subject to certain conditions. It further clarified that if the compensation awarded is enhanced, the claimants will not be entitled to interest or other statutory benefits for the period of delay. Consequently, the applications for condonation were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 4,765 days in filing cross‑objections can be condoned under civil procedure law?
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil procedure
- cross‑objections
- interest on compensation
- statutory benefits
- justice
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17136
1 901 ca.4048.26 anr.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4048 OF 2026
IN X-OBJST/10001/2026
DATTU YADHAVRAO MANE DIED THR. L.R. MADHUKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4049 OF 2026
IN X-OBJST/9994/2026
GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil & Mr. N. S. Birajdar, Advocates for Applicants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for Acquiring Body.
...
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th April, 2026.
P.C.:
1 These applications are filed for condonation of delay of 4765
days caused in filing the cross-objections.
2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
application.
3 The learned AGP and the learned counsel for the acquiring body
strongly opposed the applications and submitted that there is no
2 901 ca.4048.26 anr.odt
sufficient reason to condone the delay.
4 On perusal of the applications, it appears that the delay has not
been deliberately caused. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the
delay deserves to be condoned on certain conditions.
5 For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay stands
condoned. The applications stand allowed in the interest of justice.
6 It is made clear that in case the amount of compensation is
enhanced, the claimants shall not be entitled for the amount of interest
and other statutory benefits for the delayed period.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…