1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15407 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) No. 31206 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & another .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Iqubal Josuf Boghe ...RESPONDENT ... Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for the applicants Shri R.T.Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is an application for condonation of delay of 2115 days, in filing the First Appeal against the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court, thereby partly allowing the Reference filed by the original claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2 2. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, learned A.G.P. states that the delay was caused in filing the appeal due to administrative reasons. The proposal was forwarded to the office of Government Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad on 18th June, 2005. The appeal was also drafted in the year 2005 and the certified copy was applied on 9th June, 2010 which is received on 14th June, 2010, and as such, the delay is caused. 3. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the delay has not at all been explained by the applicant, and the State is not privileged litigant, there are no averments made which would be come within the ambit of “expression sufficient cause”. The learned Counsel rely on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in a case of “State of Maharashtra & others V/s. Vithal Kalya Govari & others, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J., 239”. 4. Though the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is to be liberally construed, the same cannot be construed so liberally so as to erase 3 expression ‘sufficient cause’, from the statute book. Though it is not necessary to explain each and every days delay. Still it is expected that the applicant pleads plausible causes for the delay. As per the averments in the application, in the year 2005 itself the appeal was drafted, and for long slumber of five years, no action was taken, and thereafter, certified copy was applied in the year 2010. The contents of the application depicts, negligence rather than showing diligence or sufficient cause. This Court in the case of “State of Maharashtra & others V/s. Vithal Kalya Govari & others”, referred supra has observed thus :- “ The Court would exercise its discretion in condoning or declining to condone delay judiciously and ensure that no serious prejudice is caused to either of the parties to the proceedings. When an appeal becomes barred by time because of negligence or default of one of the parties, valuable rights accrues to the others which normally not being taken away in a routine manner and too liberalized 4 exercise of discretionary power. It is equally true that the period of limitation and object of prescribing periods is not intended to destroy rights but is founded on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for general welfare. condonation of delay is a discretion of the Court. Length of delay per se may not be a ground for rejecting an application but if a satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the parties which can be accepted by the Court in consonance with the settled norms for exercise of such jurisdiction. The Court has to protect right of both the parties and right of onus should not be permitted to be destroyed unjustly and contrary to law. When there is delay in invoking the remedy by the applicant a right accrues to the non-applicant which cannot be taken away in a routine manner. There has to be definite and complete averments so as to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5. In the light of above, the Civil Application is rejected. However, there shall be 5 no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 15407.10CA/241110