MADHUKAR MAHADEV PATILversusSANGLI ZILLA MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.

2026:BHC-KOL:5481




                                                  1                             33 ia 718.26

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2026
                                             IN
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2017

                           Madhukar Mahadev Patil                      ..   Applicant

                                Versus

                           Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari
                           Bank Ltd.                                   ..   Respondent

                    Shri Rahul B. Khot, Advocate for the Applicant.
                    Shri Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate through V.C. a/w Shri Mayank
                    Tripati, Advocate through V. C. a/w Ms. Varsha A. Kale, Advocate
                    for the Respondent.

                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                       DATE : 10TH JULY, 2026.

                    FINAL ORDER :


                    .      Heard Mr. Khot, learned counsel for the applicant.


                    2.     Applicant is seeking extension of time which was granted
                    by order dated 06.08.2024 vide para No. 37(iii).


                    3.     Applicant’s case preferred before the Cooperative Court was
                    found not to be tenable by the Coordinate Bench. The judgments
                    passed by the Cooperative Court and the Appellate Court were
                    quashed and liberty was granted to him to approach the Civil
                    Court with a further rider that if suit is filed within a period of
                              2                          33 ia 718.26

six (06) weeks, then benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act would
be available.


4.    It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant that due to old age and ailing condition of the applicant
no steps could be taken to prefer the suit within stipulated time.
He had worked with the bank from 1979 to 2008 and terminated
without following due procedure of law. It is submitted that the
extension of time be considered sympathetically.


5.    Learned counsel for the respondent – bank Mr. Walimbe
opposes the application. It is submitted that there are laches on
the part of the applicant even in prosecuting the writ petition.
The application for extension is preferred after two years.


6.    The case preferred by the applicant was found to be not
tenable and, therefore, liberty was granted to approach the Civil
Court. This Court was gracious enough to extend benefit of Sec.
14 of the Limitation Act, with rider to file suit within a period of
six (06) weeks from order dated 06.08.2024. The grounds stated
in para No. 4 of the application are not convincing. Applicant
worked as a branch manager and he was terminated after
conducting inquiry. It cannot be countenanced that there was
nobody in the family to help him.        The reasons for seeking
extension are scanty and cannot be accepted.


7.    It is not that applicant is precluded from filing suit. If a
                              3                          33 ia 718.26

suit is filed after the prescribed period, he will be only deprived
of benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. I find that no case is
made out for interference. Interim application is rejected.



                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


bsb/July 26