( 1 ) 74 ca 8940.19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 74 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8940 OF 2019 IN SAST/6799/2019 SHEELA SAMBHA DEOKATE AND ANOTHER VERSUS SAMBHA BAPURAO DEOKATE AND OTHERS ….. Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Kulkarni M.A. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. R.B. Dhakane Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Telgaonkar U.L. ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 05.10.2026 P.C.:- Application for Delay: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 126 days caused in filing the appeal. 2. Perused the application. Heard the learned advocates for both the sides. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out the grounds raised in the application and submitted that the delay is caused because of unavailability of necessary certified copies of the judgment and it was not caused deliberately. 2026:BHC-AUG:46757 ( 2 ) 74 ca 8940.19 4. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the application and submitted that as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. The application of two paragraphs is scanty and does not disclose the sufficient reasons to condone the delay. He submits that considering the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the application deserves to be rejected. 5. Considering the facts stated in the application and the fact that the delay was not caused deliberately and as some time was also required for obtaining certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree and as it is the dispute of landed property, valuable rights of the parties are to be decided on merit, if the substantial question of law is established. 6. Considering the reasons to decide the lis on merit as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.D.A. Chaudhary v. Kartar Chand and Ors.; MANU/SC/0877/2025, the application for condonation of delay has to be considered liberally. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 126 days days stands condoned. The application is allowed accordingly. Appeal be registered. ( 3 ) 74 ca 8940.19 Appeal: 7. Heard the learned advocates for both the sides. 8. The following substantial question of law is formed: i) Is block no.1053 the ancestral property of the family members of the appellant and respondent nos.1 and 2 ? 9. Place the appeal for hearing on 26.10.2026. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] mubashir