Bombay High Court
Bhura Fula Rathod Died Thr Lrs Ganesh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 10 November, 2025
23 to 30 CA 3124 OF 2024.odt
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
23 to 30 CA 3124 OF 2024.odt
Heard both sides.
2. Following are the details of the applications, which are for condonation of delay caused in preferring appeals.
Sr. Particulars C.A. Nos. No. Date of Date of 1st
No. of filing of order
days C.A.
of
delay
1) Parasram Hamu Rathod Vs. 3124/2024 1557 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
The State of Maharashtra
2) Sheshrao Baburao Rathod 3865/2024 1651 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
Vs. State of Maharashtra
3) Surat Fula Rathod Died Vs. 3866/2024 1556 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
The State of Maharashtra
4) Waghu Baburao Rathod Vs. 3874/2024 1488 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
State of Maharashtra
5) Shayamrao Ratan Rathod 3876/2024 1515 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
Vs. State of Maharashtra
6) Bhura Fula Rathod Died 3878/2024 1655 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
Vs. State of Maharashtra
7) Sumanbai Parasram 3882/2024 1463 10.11.2023 19.09.2024
Rathod Vs. State of Mah.
8) Subhash Baburao Rathod 3891/2024 1684 28.12.2023 19.09.2024
Vs. State of Maharashtra
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 23 to 30 CA 3124 OF 2024.odt 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