Sheshrao Baburao Rathod v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Jalna And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 23 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3124 OF 2024 IN FAST/36363/2023 PARASRAM HAMU RATHOD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORS.
...
24 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3865 OF 2024 IN FAST/36353/2023 ...
25 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3866 OF 2024 IN FAST/36358/2023 ...
26 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3874 OF 2024 IN FAST/36314/2023 ...
27 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3876 OF 2024 IN FAST/36324/2023 ...
28 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3878 OF 2024 IN FAST/36365/2023 ...
29 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3882 OF 2024 IN FAST/36357/2023 ...
30 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3891 OF 2024 IN FAST/39818/2023 ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kakde S.m. And Kakade D.m. AGP for Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.V. Hange and Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar in respective matters Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vaibhav P. Deshmukh ...
CORAM
: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 10.11.2025 PER COURT :
1/3
Heard both sides.
2.
Following are the details of the applications, which are for condonation of delay caused in preferring appeals. Date of 1st Sr.
No.
Particulars C.A. Nos.
No.
Date of filing of of days order C.A.
of delay 1) Parasram Hamu Rathod Vs.
The State of Maharashtra 3124/2024 1557 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 2) Sheshrao Baburao Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra 3865/2024 1651 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 3) Surat Fula Rathod Died Vs.
The State of Maharashtra 3866/2024 1556 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 4) Waghu Baburao Rathod Vs.
State of Maharashtra 3874/2024 1488 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 5) Shayamrao Ratan Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra 3876/2024 1515 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 6) Bhura Fula Rathod Died Vs. State of Maharashtra 3878/2024 1655 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 7) Sumanbai Parasram Rathod Vs. State of Mah.
3882/2024 1463 10.11.2023 19.09.2024 8) Subhash Baburao Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra 3891/2024 1684 28.12.2023 19.09.2024 3.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the reasons stated in the application delay needs to be condoned. The applicants are ready to give up interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. 4.
The learned counsel for the respondent-Acquiring Body opposes the application. It is submitted that no sufficient and convincing grounds are mentioned for condonation of delay. The applicants are casual in their approach.
5.
I have gone through the applications. The averments in the applications are not controverted by the respondent-Acquiring Body. No 2/3
mala fides can be inferred from the applications on the part of the applicants. I propose to adopt a pragmatic approach in condoning the delay by imposing certain conditions. It seems that after filing of the matters those were not circulated for a period of about 10 months. The lapses are attributable to the applicants. They are not entitled for any benefits for this period also.
6.
The delay stands condoned on condition that the applicants shall not be entitled to claim interest and the statutory benefits for the delayed period, the length of which is mentioned in the above table and for the lapses from the date of filing of the civil applications till securing of the first order mentioned in the above table.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3