The State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Balaji Kashinath Reddi (Patil)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A V POTDAR
Outcome
Allowed
applications are allowed and the delay is condoned
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the light of the above observations and considering the fact that the public money is involved in these matters, the delay, albeit, enormous, needs to be condoned. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. drp/B11/ca12011-10 [A.V.POTDAR, J.]
Judgment
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22092 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Balaji Kashinath Reddi (Patil) RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12013 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.22098 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS Narayan Baburao Reddi (Patil) RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.V.A.Shinde, AGP for the applicant State Mr. M.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent ....... PER COURT: [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 17 th November 2011
By these applications, the applicant State has prayed {2} Civil Application No.12011/2010 for condonation of delay of 754 days in preferring first appeals. Perusal of the record shows that the papers were moved by the office of the Government Pleader in time, however there are lapses on the part of sanctioning authority due to which delay has been caused.
Recently, the Apex Court has taken a view, in “State of Karnataka versus Y.Moideen Kunhi” AIR 2009 SC 2577, that, “the expression ‘sufficient cause’ as appearing in Section 5 of The Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice as was noted by this court in G.Ramegowda, Major etc. V. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore (AIR 1988 SC 897), para no.8 of the judgment reads as follows.
The law of limitation is no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross- purposes with it.
{3} Civil Application No.12011/2010 It is also observed that-
certain cases are classic example where the circumstances are the same, where the excessive lands are involved out of which according to the State some were acquired by the State for the public purpose. The same cannot be rendered ineffective by skillful management of delay in the process of making challenge to the order which prima facie does not appear to be legally sustainable.
Operative part
In the light of the above observations and considering the fact that the public money is involved in these matters, the delay, albeit, enormous, needs to be condoned. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. drp/B11/ca12011-10
[A.V.POTDAR, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: applications are allowed and the delay is condoned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.