938-CA-3602-22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3602 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 3864 OF 2022 Sakharam Rangnath Kulkarni ..APPLICANT VERSUS Shivaji Nagorao Jadhav and Others ..RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. R.R. Kazi, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A.S. Yeole, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 .... CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 17th JULY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This is an Application for condonation of the delay of 5423 days in filing the Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Application and record. 3. The Applicant claimed that he is a member of the Trust, and therefore, he is an affected person having the right to prefer the Appeal against the judgment and order dated 02nd January 2007. Accordingly, in the 1 / 5 2026:BHC-AUG:29436 938-CA-3602-22.odt Application, particularly in Paragraph No.17, the Applicant cumulatively stated reasons for causing the delay in filing the Appeal are as follows:- i. No notice of meeting dated 14.08.1999 was served on the applicant. ii. Meetings of the Society are not held by the respondents. iii. The applicant tried to resist mismanagement. However, he was pressurized and harassed by transferring his wife. iv. The Applicant has raised objection to subsequent change reports and during the course of proceedings, the applicant got the knowledge of the fact that, the present proceedings, are required to be taken up. v. The change report in question is allowed, without there being any notice. The inquiry on change report has not taken place vi. In all the proceedings, the Change Report that has been accepted without even notice to the applicant is raised as a defence. vii. All the affairs of trust are carried as if the same is a proprietary concern of the respondent no. 1, and therefore, it was difficult to get the documents and knowledge of the proceedings. Accordingly, he urged that the delay be condoned. 4. As against, learned counsel for the Respondents resisted the Application on the ground that the Applicant and original Respondent No. 8 have no concern with the Trust. Applicant is neither a member of the Trust nor 2 / 5 938-CA-3602-22.odt has any right in the Trust, and therefore, he has no right to prefer an Appeal. But the Applicant is trying to interfere with the administration of the Trust and is unnecessarily creating litigation. On that ground alone, the Application is liable to be rejected. Alternatively, it is contended that the Applicant failed to explain the huge delay of 5423 days in filing the Appeal. The Applicant has not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay and, therefore, he urged the rejection of the Application. 5. Upon going through the reasons stated in para 17 of the Application, at the outset, I do not find that the reasons stated in the Application are sufficient to condone the huge delay of 5423 days. Apart from that, the Applicant prima facie failed to point out how he is the interested person to challenge the proceedings, when he is undoubtedly neither the Trustee nor does he have concern with the Trust or any right to manage the Trust property. 6. Moreover, it reveals that the reasons stated for condonation of delay are insufficient and vague. Therefore, the applicant has not made out sufficient cause in the application, and the reasons mentioned in the application are insufficient, inadequate, vague and unpalatable and far away from the requirements of law under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. So, I do not find any sufficient cause or reasonable explanation in the application to condone the delay. 3 / 5 938-CA-3602-22.odt 7. Apart from that, for the sake of the applicant's contentions, assuming that he is the affected person, in that eventuality, he failed to exhaust the legal remedies available to him, which he was aware of but chose not to do in time. That itself indicates that the Applicant was careless and negligent in prosecuting the remedies available in law within the stipulated time. “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt”, which means the law helps those who are vigilant about their rights, not those who have knowledge and neglect them. Thus, it appears that the Applicant has failed to explain the inordinate delay nor given a satisfactory reason for the condonation of the delay of 5423 days in filing the Appeal. As a consequence, the application is sans merits. 8. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether to condone the delay or not. Despite going through the Application for condonation of delay, I found that the reasons stated therein are not an explanation but a lame excuse. Therefore, no case for the exercise of discretion has been set up. 9. In light of the above discussion, the Applicant fails to explain the inordinate delay of 5423 days caused in filing the Appeal. The reasons stated in the Application are neither satisfactory nor reasonable to condone the delay. 4 / 5 938-CA-3602-22.odt 10. Consequently, the Civil Application, being bereft of merits, stands rejected. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SSD 5 / 5