THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAIGADversusPANDURANG VITTHAL GHANEKAR AND ORS.

                                                                          95-Fast-18984-23+.doc



                                                                                  Sayali


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 18984 OF 2023
                                                 WITH
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17703 OF 2023
SAYALI                                           WITH
DEEPAK
UPASANI                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17704 OF 2023
                                                 WITH
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
                                  FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 18984 OF 2023
UPASANI
Date: 2026.09.22
16:50:39 +0530
                   The Executive Engineer, Raigad                  … Appellant
                              V/s.
                   Pandurang Vitthal Ghanekar
                   And Ors                                         … Respondents

                   Mr. Vikas More with Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, for
                   Appellant.
                   Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP for Appellant.


                                               CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                               DATED      : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026

                   P.C.:
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17703 OF 2023

                   1.      The applicant has filed the present Interim Application
                   seeking condonation of delay of 6 years and 8 days in preferring
                   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



                                                     1
                                                       95-Fast-18984-23+.doc


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 12 April 2017. However, the
application seeking certified copy of the judgment was filed on 05
May 2017. 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. 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



                                   2
                                                   95-Fast-18984-23+.doc


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 17 July 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
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



                                 3
                                                    95-Fast-18984-23+.doc


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.17704 of 2023 for stay stand disposed of.



                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4