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 2026:BHC-KOL:5481 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