THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HETAVANE PROJECT SECTION 1, RAIGADversusSHRI. BALARAM KAMLYA HATE AND ANR.

                                                                59-FA-st-33749-2023 with connected.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO.33749 OF 2023

                      The Executive Engineer,
         Digitally
         signed by    Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad            … Appellant
         SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB     PATHAN                  V/s.
PATHAN   Date:
         2026.09.29
         17:55:05
                      Balaram Kamlya Hate and Anr.                  … Respondents
         +0530


                                                   WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10055 OF 2024

                      The Executive Engineer,
                      Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad            … Applicant
                                 V/s.
                      Balaram Kamlya Hate and Anr.                  … Respondents

                                                   WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10054 OF 2024

                      The Executive Engineer,
                      Hetavane Project Section 1, Raigad            … Applicant
                                 V/s.
                      Balaram Kamlya Hate and Anr.                  … Respondents



                      Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, for the Appellant/Applicant.
                      Mr. A. R. Patil, Addl. GP, for the State – Respondent.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
                      P.C.:
                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10054 OF 2024

                      1.      The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
                      seeking condonation of delay of 5 years and 255 days in preferring


                                                        1
                                           59-FA-st-33749-2023 with connected.doc


the present appeal arising out of the Reference Award passed
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2.    The cause shown for condonation of such substantial delay is
stated in paragraph No. 5 of the application. The Court has
carefully gone through the said pleadings. Since the delay is of an
extraordinary length, the explanation furnished by the applicant is
required to be examined with greater scrutiny. It is well settled
that while a liberal approach may be adopted in considering an
application for condonation of delay, such approach cannot
dispense with the requirement of furnishing a satisfactory
explanation covering the entire period of delay. The applicant is
therefore required to place before the Court material indicating
that despite acting with due diligence, the appeal could not be
filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It is in the light of
these principles that the explanation set out in paragraph No. 5 is
required to be assessed.

3.    After considering the recitals contained in paragraph No. 5 of
the application and after examining the chronology of events
placed on record, it becomes evident that the impugned judgment
and award came to be passed on 2 January 2018. However, the
application seeking certified copy of the judgment was filed on
12 January 2021. This factual position itself shows that for a
considerable period after passing of the award, no steps were
taken by the applicant. The Court finds that there is no satisfactory
explanation for this period. The pleadings are silent as to what
prevented the applicant from approaching the Court or taking
necessary steps immediately after pronouncement of the award.



                                   2
                                         59-FA-st-33749-2023 with connected.doc


Mere general statements without particulars cannot be treated as
sufficient cause, particularly when the delay runs into several
years.

4.       It is true that the period affected by the Covid Pandemic
deserves due consideration. The Courts have also taken judicial
notice of the difficulties faced by litigants during that period.
Therefore, even if the period from March 2020 till March 2022 is
excluded from consideration the difficulty still remains that there
is no explanation for the period commencing from June 2018 till
March 2020. The applicant has not disclosed any circumstances
showing sufficient reason which could justify inaction during this
period. In absence of such explanation, the Court is unable to
conclude that the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the
control of the applicant.

5.       Even for the period subsequent to March 2022, the
explanation furnished does not inspire confidence. The appeal
ultimately came to be filed on 12 December 2023. Thus, even after
normal functioning of Courts had resumed, there remained a
further period for which justification was required. The reasons
stated are that an advocate was required to be appointed and that
arrangements had to be made for payment of court fees. Such
explanations are of a general nature. Every litigant intending to
challenge a judgment is expected to take necessary steps for
engaging an advocate and arranging court fees within a reasonable
period. These are ordinary requirements of litigation and cannot
constitute sufficient cause for condoning a prolonged delay
extending over several years. The application does not disclose any



                                  3
                                         59-FA-st-33749-2023 with connected.doc


circumstance showing why these procedural requirements could
not be completed earlier.

6.    The Court is conscious that refusal to condone delay may
result in denial of adjudication on merits. However, limitation
provisions cannot be rendered meaningless. The law of limitation
is founded upon public policy. When a party seeks indulgence of
the Court after expiry of the prescribed period, the burden lies
upon such party to satisfactorily explain the delay. In the present
matter,   the      explanation   furnished    remains         incomplete.
Consequently, this Court is unable to hold that sufficient cause has
been made out for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. In my
opinion, therefore, the application for condonation of delay cannot
be allowed.

7.    The Interim Application accordingly deserves to be rejected
and is rejected.

8.    In view of the dismissal of the Interim Application seeking
condonation of delay, the present First Appeal cannot be
entertained on merits.

9.    Accordingly, the present First Appeal as well as Interim
Application No. 10055 of 2024 for stay stand disposed of.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4