Bombay High Court
NAMDEO S/O ANANDRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR , DIST. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, NANDED
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The Court condoned the 322‑day delay in filing the appeal.
Summary
Namdeo, a poor litigant, filed an application seeking condonation of a 322‑day delay in filing a first appeal against an award of the Reference Court in LAR No.91 of 2014. The delay was attributed to the COVID‑19 pandemic, lockdown restrictions, lack of public transport, and the applicant’s inability to raise the necessary fees. The State of Maharashtra opposed the application, arguing that the explanation for the delay was insufficient. The Court, noting the applicant’s poverty and the detailed explanation, decided to condone the delay, imposing a modest cost of Rs.1,000 to be paid to the Library of the Advocates Association and requiring an undertaking not to claim interest for the delayed period. Consequently, the appeal was ordered to be registered, and the application was disposed of in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 322 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil appeal
- COVID‑19 pandemic
- poverty
- costs
- interest undertaking
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3672
926.CA.4207.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4207 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 21477 OF 2020
Namdeo s/o Anandrao Patil ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
***
Mr. S. R. Bagal h./f Mr. Gadegaonkar Bharat N., Advocate for the
Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for Respondent – State.
***
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : JANUARY 28, 2026
PER COURT :
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 322 days
in filing the first appeal challenging the award passed by the Reference
Court in LAR No.91 of 2014.
2. The claimant has submitted that it is due to covid-19
pandemic lock down and lack of public transport, the claimant could
not visit the office of the advocate, so also could not arrange the
necessary fees for filing of the appeal. It is submitted that the claimant
is from poor family and therefore, the appeal was not filed within the
time bound period.
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 2
926.CA.4207.2021
3. The learned APP opposes the application and contends that
the delay is not properly explained.
4. In view of the fact that the applicant was a poor person
and he has explained the delay in a proper manner. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.1,000/- be paid to the Library of the Advocates Association of
Bombay High Court, Aurangabad. The delay is condoned, subject to
the applicant giving undertaking that he will not claim interest for the
delayed period.
5. Since the application is disposed of, the appeal be
registered accordingly.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…