Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a Civil Application filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Education Officer (Primary), and Chief Account Officer of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad (applicants/original respondents) seeking condonation of a 3 years and 3 months delay in filing a Review Petition against an order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019. The applicants argued that the order had financial implications and that as a local self-government, their decision-making process was clumsy and time-consuming, requiring policy decisions and instructions from the State Government. They contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The court, while acknowledging that a liberal and pragmatic approach should be adopted in condonation applications and that the length of delay is not material but the explanation is, examined the averments in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application. The court found that the explanation was vague, lacking specific details such as when the policy decision was taken or when instructions were received. The court concluded that the delay was inordinate and the reasons provided did not constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the Civil Application was dismissed, and the Review Petition was rejected as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Sufficient Cause - The applicants, a local self-government, sought condonation of 3 years and 3 months delay in filing a review petition, citing the need for policy decisions and procedural compliances. The court held that the explanation was not sufficient as the delay was inordinate and the reasons given were vague and lacked specific dates. The application was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 3 years and 3 months in filing the Review Petition should be condoned on the ground of the applicants being a local self-government with a clumsy decision-making process.
Final Decision
The Civil Application is dismissed. Consequently, the Review Petition (St.) No. 26394 of 2022 stands rejected as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Length of delay not material but explanation is
- Liberal approach in condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 5
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 312
Civil Application No.6737 of 2025 in Review Petition (St.) No. 26394 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019
R. G. Avachat, Abasaheb D. Shinde
Mr. Ajay S. Deshpande for the Applicants, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Aurangabad; The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Aurangabad; The Chief Account Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad
Ambadas s/o Yeduba Jumde & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Application for condonation of delay in filing Review Petition
Remedy Sought
Condonation of delay of 3 years and 3 months in filing Review Petition against order dated 11.06.2019 in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019
Filing Reason
The applicants, being local self-government, needed time to take policy decision and complete procedural formalities for filing review petition due to financial implications of the order.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019
Issues
Whether the delay of 3 years and 3 months in filing the Review Petition should be condoned.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants submitted that the order involved financial implications and as a local self-government, they required time to take policy decision and complete procedural formalities; the delay was not intentional or deliberate.
Respondents (State) were represented by AGP but no specific arguments recorded.
Ratio Decidendi
While considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted, and it is not the length but the explanation of delay that needs to be considered. However, the explanation must be sufficient and not vague. In this case, the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 3 years and 3 months, as the reasons given were general and lacked specific details.
Judgment Excerpts
It is true that while considering an application for condonation of delay a liberal and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted. It is also equally true that it is not the length but the explanation of delay that needs to be considered.
The explanation given in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application is vague and does not provide any specific details as to when the policy decision was taken or when instructions were received from the State Government.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.6728 of 2019 was decided on 11.06.2019. The applicants (original respondents) filed Review Petition (St.) No. 26394 of 2022 seeking review of that order, which was beyond limitation by 3 years and 3 months. They filed Civil Application No.6737 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The application was heard and dismissed on 20.11.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
