955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2025 IN SAST/14278/2024 Dattatray Shankar Patil VERSUS Shankar S/o Dhondu Patil (deaceased Abated) And Ors ... Ms. Vaishali P. Dama h/f Mr. Prashant Dama, Advocate for Applicant WITH SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 14278 OF 2024WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7779 OF 2025 IN SAST/14278/2024WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 169 OF 2025 IN SAST/14278/2024WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6317 OF 2025 IN CA/169/2025 …. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 23.09.2026 PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2025 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 3247 days caused in filing the Second Appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the delay has been caused due to the Applicant not receiving proper legal advice and also due to his poor economic condition. She submitted that the Applicant received proper advice recently and 1 of 3 (( 2 )) 955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025 thereafter applied for a certified copy. She prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice as it is not deliberately caused. 4. Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji, 1987 AIR (SC) 1353, in which it is held that expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963, is required to be construed liberally and in a manner that enables the Court to advance substantial justice by deciding matters on merits. The Court further held that the expression “every day’s delay must be explained” does not warrant a pedantic approach and that the principles of limitation should be applied in a rational, common-sense and pragmatic manner. Where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further, in order to decide the lis finally on merits, the application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice as the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. Hence the following order: ::ORDER:: a. Civil Application is allowed. b. The delay of 3247 days caused in filing the Second Appeal is condoned. 2 of 3 (( 3 )) 955 CA NO. 168 OF 2025 SECOND APPEAL 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 28.10.2026. 3. Call for Record and Proceedings. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 3 of 3