Bombay High Court
MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEERversusLAXMAN NIVRUTTI KANGUDE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and therefore the delay cannot be condoned.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered an interim application seeking condonation of a delay of about 1,850 days in filing an appeal against a judgment dated 7 April 2018. The Court examined whether the explanation provided by the public authority satisfied the requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It found a two‑year gap in the explanation and noted that the reasons given—routine movement of files and obtaining approvals—were ordinary bureaucratic procedures, not exceptional circumstances. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, the Court held that vague administrative explanations cannot justify such a gross delay. Consequently, the Court rejected the interim application and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of approximately five years in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the explanation provided by the public authority constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.
- Effect of the COVID‑19 pandemic and Supreme Court extensions on the limitation period in this case.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- Limitation
- Condonation of delay
- Section 5
- Public authority
- Bureaucratic delay
- COVID-19
- Appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
51-fa1032-2023 with ia14487-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14487 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2023
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2023
ATUL Maharashtra Krishna Valley
GANESH
KULKARNI Development Corporation
Digitally signed by Through Its Executive Engineer … Appellant
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI V/s.
Date: 2026.09.22
18:16:00 +0530 Laxman Nivrutti Kangude & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr. Shivkumar Gangwad
and Ms. Rupsee Nerlikar for the Applicant.
Ms. Amrita Kharkar with Ms. Sayalee Bhosale, & Ms.
Hrucha Joshi i/b P. H. Potnis, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the State – Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
1. Interim Application No.14487 of 2023 is not board. By
consent, taken on board.
2. The delay in filing the appeal is very long of about 1850
days. Such delay is not of few weeks or few months. It is of several
years. When appeal is brought before the Court after such long
time, the applicant is required to place before the Court a full,
clear, and convincing explanation covering the entire period of
1
51-fa1032-2023 with ia14487-2023.doc
delay. The Court cannot ignore such huge delay only because the
applicant is a public authority. Law of limitation applies equally to
every litigant. Therefore, the explanation given in support of the
application is required to be examined with greater care so that
the Court can find out whether there was really sufficient cause
which prevented the applicants from approaching the Court within
the prescribed period.
3. On careful reading of the reasons stated in paragraph 10 of
the application, it appears that the impugned judgment and award
was passed on 7 April 2018. However, the explanation furnished
by the applicants starts only from 20 March 2020. Thus, there is
complete silence regarding the period from 7 April 2018 till 20
March 2020. This period itself runs for almost two years. The
applications do not disclose what steps were taken during this
period, which officer was dealing with the matter, when the
proposal for filing the appeals was initiated, or what circumstance
prevented the applicants from approaching the Court within
limitation. The Court cannot fill up these missing facts by making
assumptions. Every day's delay need not be explained in
mathematical detail, but the entire period must at least be
reasonably accounted for. In the present case, there is no
explanation at all for this substantial part of the delay.
4. Even if the period covered by the COVID 19 pandemic is
excluded in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court extending limitation, the position does not improve for the
applicants. The explanation thereafter merely shows that the files
were moving from one office to another and that approvals were
2
51-fa1032-2023 with ia14487-2023.doc
being obtained from different departments. Such routine
administrative movement of papers cannot by itself constitute
sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If
such explanation is accepted in every case, then the law of
limitation would lose its purpose because every Government
department can simply rely upon internal correspondence and
movement of files to justify any length of delay. The law does not
recognise ordinary bureaucratic procedure as a ground to condone
an extraordinary delay unless the applicants show exceptional
circumstances beyond their control.
5. The Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649
has observed that delay cannot be condoned in a routine or
mechanical manner and that vague explanations based upon
administrative procedure are not sufficient. The Supreme Court
has cautioned that while a liberal approach may be adopted in
appropriate cases, such liberality cannot extend to condoning gross
negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. The Court is required to
balance justice to both parties. If one party has obtained a
judgment and allowed it to attain finality because no appeal was
filed within limitation, such party also acquires a valuable right
which cannot be lightly disturbed after several years unless a
satisfactory explanation is placed before the Court.
6. Ultimately, the appeals came to be filed only on 27 July
2023. Thus, the delay exceeds five year. Except referring to the
process of obtaining approvals and movement of files between
different departments, the applications do not disclose any
3
51-fa1032-2023 with ia14487-2023.doc
concrete event, unavoidable circumstance or legal impediment
which prevented the applicants from filing the appeals within the
prescribed time. The explanation remains general in nature and
does not inspire confidence. It fails to show that the delay was
beyond the control of the applicants or that they acted with
reasonable diligence throughout the relevant period. In these
circumstances, this Court is unable to record a finding that the
applicants have established "sufficient cause" within the meaning
of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the
enormous delay in filing the appeals cannot be condoned.
7. The interim application, therefore, deserve to be rejected and
is accordingly rejected.
8. Accordingly, the first appeal stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.