Bombay High Court

BABU S/O. IRABA WAGHMARE.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The Court held that the substantial but non‑deliberate delay may be condoned, provided the petitioners undertake not to claim statutory benefits or interest for the delayed period.

Summary

The petitioners, Shankar s/o Ramrao Dalve Patil, filed two civil applications (Nos. 6408/6409 of 2026) against the State of Maharashtra and others, seeking relief after a delay of 1,457 days in filing their first appeals. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared for the respondents, and a notice was issued to a third respondent who did not appear. The Court examined whether the extensive delay was intentional or could be condoned. Finding the explanation for the delay satisfactory and not deliberate, the Court allowed the applications but imposed a condition that the petitioners give an undertaking not to claim any statutory benefit or interest for the period of delay. The undertaking must be filed with the Registrar within four weeks. Consequently, the civil applications were disposed of in accordance with prayer clause ‘B’.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 1,457 days in filing the first appeal can be condoned
Whether the petitioners may be barred from claiming statutory benefits and interest due to the delay

Subjects

delay in filing appeal
condonation of delay
statutory benefits
interest
undertaking
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38401


                                                    1                         962...odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6408 OF 2026
                                      IN FAST/16927/2026
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6409 OF 2026
                                      IN FAST/16981/2026

                           SHANKAR S/O. RAMRAO DALVE PATIL.
                                           VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST
                               COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
                                                ...
                       Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Solanke Shrikrashna B.
                       AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Ms. Preeti Diggikar
                                                …

                                        CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                        DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           In both these Appeals, there is a delay of 1457 days in filing

              the First Appeals.

              2.           Learned AGP appears for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and upon

              issuing notice, Respondent no. 3 is served. However, nobody has caused

              appearance for Respondent no. 3.

              3.           The delay is explained in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the

              Applications which is satisfactory and it is not intentional or deliberate.

              4.           In view of this, the Applications are allowed subject to

              condition that the Claimants shall give an undertaking before this Court
                                       2                        962...odt


that they will not claim statutory benefit as well as interest of the delayed

period in approaching this Court. This undertaking be given by the

Applicants to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial), of this Court

within a period of four weeks.

5.           In   view    of     the   aforementioned     observations,     the

Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'.

6.           The Civil Applications stand disposed of.




                                       ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…