1 42-WP-14961-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 42 WRIT PETITION NO. 14961 OF 2025 Sitabai Asaram Nade VERSUS Competent Authority Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer And Another WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14970 OF 2025 Sitabai Asaram Nade VERSUS Competent Authority Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer And Another ….. Mr. Vaidya Ameet Raveendra, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Munde, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr. F. F. Shirpurkar h/f., Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ….. CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 24 AUGUST 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, below Exhibit 67, dated 10 October 2025, and order below Exhibit 79, dated 4 December 2025, in LAR No.87 of 2018. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old lady, aged 97 years, who is respondent No.1 in the Original proceedings before the Trial Court. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application at Exhibit Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:38682 2 42-WP-14961-2025.odt – 67, praying for permission to deposit the cost amount and for restoration of the order by setting aside the no-evidence order passed against her on 16 June 2025. After hearing the parties, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, recorded that the matter was fixed for evidence on 4 September 2023, the petitioner has filed her affidavit of examination-in-chief and thereafter remained absent for cross- examination. It was further recorded that she had remained absent for more than 2½ years and had failed to submit herself for cross- examination. However, considering the reasons stated in the application, her application was allowed by granting a fair opportunity to the petitioner, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the objection petitioner on the next date. The order further observed that if the respondent Sitabai Asaram Nade failed to remain present on the next date for cross-examination and to pay the cost, in such contingency, the order shall stand vacated. 5. This order was passed on 3 October 2025. The petitioner thereafter filed an application at Exhibit – 67 under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking extension of time to deposit the amount granted by the Court vide order dated 3 October 2025. It was also stated that she could not remain present because her health was not keeping well. In the application, she sought 15 days’ time to deposit the amount. This application was filed on 10 November 2025. The respondent No.1 filed a ‘say’ opposing the said application. Kiran Kawre 3 42-WP-14961-2025.odt 6. According to the respondent, on failure of the present petitioner to remain present and deposit the amount, the conditional order had already come into force and the order passed below Exhibit -67, automatically stood vacated. The application below Exhibit – 67, filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time, was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, on 10 October 2025, on the ground that the application for extension of time was not accompanied by a medical certificate. 7. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that after the said order was passed below Exhibit – 67, the petitioner filed another application below Exhibit – 79, seeking permission to deposit the costs directed by the order passed below Exhibit – 67 and for setting aside the order of vacation. A ‘say’ was also filed by the respondent on the said application. Thereafter, the order below Exhibit – 79 was passed on 4 December 2025, refusing permission to deposit the amount as requested in the application at Exhibit – 79. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the reason for refusing extension of time by the learned Judge is not appropriate and is based on a flimsy ground. Considering the age of the petitioner, the Court ought not to have insisted upon for filing a medical certificate. Applicant being 97 years old lady and in a frail condition, the Court ought not to have insisted on the medical certificate. According to him, considering the substantive right of the petitioner involved in the land acquisition Kiran Kawre 4 42-WP-14961-2025.odt proceedings, technicalities should not have been insisted upon so as to defeat the substantial rights of the petitioner. According to the learned advocate, non-filing of the medical certificate is merely a procedural irregularity which could have been got resolved had the Court directed the petitioner to produce such certificate. 9. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner, contending that the order passed by the Reference Court on 16 June 2025 was a self-operative order and, on failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount, the order automatically stands vacated. Therefore, the Court has rightly passed the orders below Exhibit – 67 as well as 79. Mr. Munde, appearing for the competent authority, also supports the said order. 10. I have perused the order, application filed by the petitioner for extension of time for depositing the cost awarded to the objection petitioner, as well as the application seeking permission to deposit the said amount. The first application was filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time for depositing the amount on the ground that she being an aged person, she could not remain present for hearing and could not deposit the cost awarded within time, considering that she has merely requested 15 days’ time to deposit the amount, the application ought to have granted by taking a liberal approach, however, it has been rejected merely on the ground that the application was not accompanied by a medical certificate. Considering the advanced age of the petitioner, the Kiran Kawre 5 42-WP-14961-2025.odt insistence on a medical certificate was uncalled for. As argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner, if the Court intended for the petitioner to support the application with a medical certificate, the Court ought to have granted an opportunity to petitioner to produce such certificate. Such opportunity was not granted, and the substantive right of the petitioner came to be denied by refusing to extend the time as requested in the application at Exhibit -67. 11. Thus, this order needs to be set aside by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the amount. When the application at Exhibit – 79 was filed, seeking permission to deposit the amount, since already the time extended was over. Permission has been denied on the ground that the order passed below Exhibit – 67 was a conditional order and had already come into force, since it was a self operative order. Even this order needs to be set aside. Since her earlier application at Exhibit – 67 was already filed before the date assigned for depositing the amount, and the application for extension of time was already pending. An opportunity is denied to the petitioner on a technical ground, namely, absence of a medical certificate. The order dated 10 October 2025 below Exhibit – 67 and the order dated 4 December 2025 below Exhibit – 79 in LAR No. 87 of 2025 are, therefore, quashed and set aside. 12. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the costs, to be paid to the respondent, within a period of two weeks form the date of this order in the trial Court. Kiran Kawre 6 42-WP-14961-2025.odt 13. In view of the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. WRIT PETITION NO. 14970 OF 2025 14. The contesting respondent No.2 in the present writ petition shall file reply affidavit within two weeks. 15. Stand over to 7 September 2026. [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ] Kiran Kawre