Bombay High Court

RAMJI MANIKRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court held that the 2,294‑day delay was not deliberate and, in the interest of justice, should be condoned, but the applicant is not entitled to interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period.

Summary

The applicant, a poor agriculturist, filed an application seeking condonation of a 2,294‑day delay in filing his first appeal against a judgment dated 12 April 2007. He argued that the delay was not deliberate, arising from his illiteracy, lack of legal knowledge, and communication gaps with his counsel, and that denying condonation would cause economic loss. The State opposed, contending there was no sufficient reason to excuse such a prolonged delay. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar (2022) and considered the applicant’s disadvantaged position. Finding the delay non‑deliberate and the applicant’s inability to bear costs, the Court allowed the application and condoned the delay, while expressly denying any entitlement to interest or statutory benefits for the period of delay. The applicant was directed to file an undertaking renouncing any claim to such benefits within two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of more than five years in filing a first appeal can be condoned under civil procedure law.
Whether the applicant’s status as a poor agriculturist warrants a liberal interpretation for condonation of delay.
Whether the applicant is entitled to interest or statutory benefits on compensation for the period of delayed filing.

Subjects

condonation of delay
civil appeal
agriculturist litigant
interest entitlement
statutory benefits
liberal judicial approach
procedural law

Judgment

                                               927 CANO. 6433 OF 2014.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            927 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6433 OF 2014
                       IN FAST/29926/2013

                       Ramji Manikrao Patil
                             VERSUS
              The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                ...
Mr. S. S. Halkude, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, AGP for Respondents/State
                                ….

                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                       DATE : 18.03.2026
PER COURT :-

1.          Heard.


2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 2294

days caused in filing the first appeal.


3.          The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that

the delay caused in filing the first appeal was not deliberate. It

occurred because the appellant was illiterate farmer having no

knowledge of legal proceedings. There was communication gap

between the advocate and the applicant. Until the acquiring body

deposited the amount, the claimant was not intimated about the

receipt of the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award,

therefore, the delay was caused. He further submitted that


                                                                 1 of 3
                                   (( 2 ))       927 CANO. 6433 OF 2014


valuable rights of the applicant to receive compensation are involved,

and if the delay is not condoned, he would suffer economic loss.

Therefore, he prayed for condonation of delay



4.          The learned AGP for respondent / State strongly opposed

the application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to

condone the delay. He prayed to reject the application.



5.          Perused the application.    The applicant is agriculturist.

Admittedly, L.A.R. No. 285 of 2002 was decided on 12.04.2007, and

the application was filed on 21.10.2013, thus, a delay of more than

five years has been caused. Considering the status of the applicant

and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.8331-8345 of 2022 in the case of New Okhla Industrial

Development Authority Vs. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma

(Dead) Through Legal heir & Anr. decided on 17.11.2022, the Court

has dealt with such cases by taking a liberal view. The applicant is a

poor agriculturist, therefore, costs cannot be saddled upon him.

Considering the fact that the delay is not deliberately caused, the

application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.      Hence,

the following order:

                                                                    2 of 3
                                     (( 3 ))         927 CANO. 6433 OF 2014


                               ::ORDER::

a.         Civil Application is allowed.
b.         The delay of 2294 days caused in filing the first appeal is
           condoned.
c.         It is clarified that the applicant shall not be entitled to
           interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. To
           that effect, the applicant shall file an undertaking to
           Registrar (Judicial) of this Court stating that he shall not
           claim interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period
           on enhanced compensation, in case, his appeal is
           favourably considered. Such an undertaking to be filed
           within a period of two (02) weeks from today and shall be
           made part of the compilation.


FIRST APPEAL

1.          Issue    notice   to    the     respondents,        returnable       on

15.04.2026.

2.          Learned     AGP        waives      service     of      notice     for

Respondents/State.

3.          Call for Record and Proceedings.



                                   [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                        3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…