Bombay High Court

MOTICHAND TILOKCHAND BEDMUTHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court condoned the delay and allowed the substitution of the petitioner’s name in the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, the late Mr. Motichand Tilokchand Bedmutha, had filed a writ petition challenging a 2015 order of the Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Department. After his death, the Osmanabad District Marathi Reporter Association resolved that its President, Secretary or Treasurer could represent the Association, and a civil application was prepared on 19‑04‑2023 to substitute the petitioner’s name with the new President, Mr. Dhananjay Shrimantrao Randive. The application was filed only on 21‑04‑2026, resulting in a delay of 1,423 days, which Respondent No.6 contested as inordinate and casually drafted, relying on the Rodrigues judgment. The Court noted that applications for condonation of delay are to be construed liberally, that the delay was attributable to the advocate’s mistake, and that similar applications in related writ petitions had been allowed. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, permitted the substitution of the petitioner’s name, and imposed costs on the applicant.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 1,423 days in filing an application for substitution of the petitioner’s name can be condoned.
Whether the application should be rejected on the ground of casual drafting and lack of supporting documents.
Whether the litigant can be penalised for the mistake of his advocate or staff.

Subjects

substitution of name
condonation of delay
writ petition
limitation period
association representation
civil application
cost order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:36965

1 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5260 OF 2026
IN WP/3782/2021

Motichand Tilokchand Bedmutha
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. A.D. Ostwal
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.B. Bhange
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. N.N. Jagadale
Advocate for Respondent No.9 : Mr. S.S. Rathi
Advocate for Petitioner in WP : Mr. V.B. Deshmukh
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2273 OF 2016 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3782 OF 2021 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1533 OF 2016
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P.C.:

1. The petitioner Mr. Motichand Tilokchand Bedmutha has filed

Writ Petition No.3782 of 2021 in order to challenge order dated

27.08.2015 passed by Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department,

Government of Maharashtra at Mumbai in File No.

Appeal/2014/L.No.188/J-7 A/L No.873 (08)/2014. The said order is

also subject matter of challenge in other two petitions bearing Writ

Petition Nos.2273 of 2016 and 1533 of 2016. The petitioner Mr.

Bedmutha is respondent in said petitions and has filed present petition

in his capacity as President of Osmanabad District Marathi Reporter

Association. Mr. Bedmutha expired on 22.04.2021. After his demise,
2 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

the Association passed a resolution in its special meeting held on

04.04.2023 interalia resolving that the President or Secretary or

Treasurer of Association can represent the interest of Association in the

petition. Thereafter, three civil applications came to be prepared for

substitution of name of respondents in other two petitions i.e. Writ

Petition Nos.2273 of 2016 and 1533 of 2016 and for substitution of

name of petitioner in present petition i.e. Writ Petition No.3782 of

2019. The affirmation on this application is sworn on 19.04.2023. In

present petition also, copy of civil application is served on the office of

Government Pleader on 19.04.2023. However, all these three

applications are filed on 21.04.2026. In such circumstances, there is a

delay of around 1423 days in filing application for substitution of name

of petitioner. The civil applications filed in other two cases where Mr.

Bedmutha is respondent have been allowed vide order dated

04.08.2026.

2. Perusal of order dated 04.08.2026 allowing Civil Application

No.5258 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.1533 of 2016 will indicate that the

respondents in said petition did not file any reply opposing the

application. On that basis, this Court has drawn an inference that

respondents have no grievance with respect to contents of application.

It must be stated that petitioners in said petition had expressly given no

objection for allowing the application.
3 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

3. The respondent no.6 has filed reply in present application

opposing the same. Learned advocate for respondent no.6 contends

that although the application is sworn on 19.04.2023, the same is filed

after an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is offered

in the application. Learned advocate contends that the application is

casually drafted and as such, same deserves to be rejected. His

contention is that inordinate delay of over 1400 days cannot be

condoned merely for asking. Learned advocate has placed strong

reliance on judgment of this Court in case of Prof (Mrs) Nelly

Rodrigues Vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance

Company Limited reported in 2025 (1) Bom. C.R. 554 wherein this

Court has held that in case where applications for condonation of delay

are drafted casually and contents of application are not supported by

appropriate documents, delay cannot be condoned.

4. It is by now well settled that the applications for condonation

of delay should be construed liberally with an endeavour to decide

cases on merit rather than dismissing the same on technical ground of

delay. However, it is equally well settled that the delay cannot be

condoned merely for asking. Each case is required to be viewed in its

particular set of facts and judicial discretion is required to be exercised

in order to consider that delay should be condoned or not.

5. In this backdrop, when one takes a overview of facts of
4 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

present case, it appears that in the first case instead of instituting

proceeding against the Association, the proceeding is initiated against

the President of Association. The President of Association has filed the

petition being aggrieved by order passed by respondent no.1. The

petition is not filed in order to espouse the personal cause. It is filed in

the capacity of President of Association. In other two cases, the

application is allowed by this Court accepting the explanation offered in

the applications. Identical reasons are given in present application for

condonation of delay. The petitioner/President expired on 22.04.2021

when by virtue of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, period

of limitation was suspended. This suspension of limitation continued till

February-2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that in cases

where limitation expired prior to 28.02.2022 should be filed within a

period of 90 days therefrom. The resolution for substitution of name is

passed in the meeting held on 04.04.2023 and the application came to

be prepared on 19.04.2023. The copy of application is also served on

office of Government Pleader. However, the application was not filed

with office of this Court. The applicant has filed affidavit of advocate’s

clerk who has stated that he was indisposed and it is due to his mistake,

the application could not be filed.

6. What transpires from the record is that although the affidavit

in support of application is sworn and copy thereof is already served on
5 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

Government Pleader’s Office, the same is filed after an inordinate delay

of 1423 days. The delay as is apparent from the facts narrated above is

attributable to the office of learned advocate representing the

petitioner/applicant. By now, it is well settled that the litigant could

not be made to suffer for the fault or mistake on behalf of his advocate

or staff associated with the office of advocate.

7. In view of aforesaid and also having regard to the fact that in

two petitions assailing the same order, the applications for condonation

of delay of same period are allowed, in the considered opinion of this

Court, present application also deserves to be allowed. It must also be

mentioned that the case in strict sense is not the one for bringing legal

heirs on record. The petitioner as mentioned above has not filed the

petition to espouse his personal cause. He was representing cause of

Association of which he was the President at the relevant time. The

Association as mentioned above ought to have been arrayed as party to

the proceeding before learned authorities below. However, instead of

Association, the President of Association was arrayed as party in his

personal name.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be subserved

by condoning delay caused in filing application for substitution of name

of petitioner. Hence, civil application is allowed. The delay of 1423
6 901-ca-5260-2026.odt

days caused in filing the application is condoned and permission is

granted to substitute name of Mr. Dhananjay Shrimantrao Randive as

President of Osmanabad District Marathi Reporter Association, as

petitioner in writ petition.

9. However, having regard to the delay that is occasioned, cost

of Rs.15,000/- is imposed inclusive of amount of Rs.5,000/- which is

already deposited by the applicant with Government Cancer Hospital,

Aurangabad. Additional cost of Rs.10,000/- be paid to Osmanabad

Advocates Bar Association on or before 27.08.2026.

[ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…