On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that an application for a delay in condonation made at the request of an unknown party is unsupportable.
B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta's bench was handling an appeal that contested a ruling made by the Bombay High Court.
In the current case, there are conflicting claims to a plot of land in Thane, Maharashtra's Sonkhar Village. In 1986 and 1988, the government purchased the land for public use, and CIDCO was given development rights over it.
But in 2002, Pravin Jamndas Thakkar filed a lawsuit contesting the acquisition's legality, sparking a legal battle. Following his death in 2005, Pravin Jamndas Thakkar's legal heirs took up the case. The trial court initially allowed their application to be added as parties but later dismissed the suit in 2011 for want of prosecution.
In 2019, the legal heirs filed an application seeking to restore the suit, which is still pending. Meanwhile, a private limited company, claiming to be an assignee from the legal heirs, filed another application in 2021 seeking restoration of the suit. This company alleged that it had entered into an Agreement for Sale with the legal heirs in 2009 and had paid part consideration for the land.
The trial court, in May 2022, allowed the restoration application filed by the private limited company, subject to payment of costs and condoned the significant delay in filing. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court. However, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, only increasing the costs awarded.
Mukul Rohatgi, counsel for the appellant submitted that as a matter of fact, the subject suit itself is a frivolous one. The suit land belonged to the predecessors of the appellants and it was acquired by the State and the compensation duly received by the appellants. The proceedings for enhancement are also pending before the High Court. It was submitted that entertaining the application at the instance of a stranger for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of a frivolous suit is nothing else but a travesty of justice.
C.A. Sundaram, counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent No.1 has accrued a right in the lis on account of an Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009 entered into between it and the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. It is submitted that, since respondents No.2 and 3 were not prosecuting the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the subject suit, respondent No.1 was justified in filing such an application.
Supreme Court opined that the approach of the trial court in entertaining the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 is totally unsustainable in law. The claim of respondent No.1 is on an unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009. Entertaining an application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit is totally unsustainable in law.
Further, the bench stated that admittedly, respondent No.1 has not even been impleaded in the subject suit. As such, the application filed at the behest of the stranger, who is not a party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. If the approach as adopted by the trial court is approved, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit even if he is not a party to the subject suit.
Supreme Court observed that apart from that, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit at the behest of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff is very much pending since 7th November 2019. It is difficult to understand as to what was the compelling necessity for the trial court to have entertained the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 after a period of two years from the date of filing of the application by respondents No.2 and 3.
The bench opined that though, it was urged by the appellants before the High Court that respondent No.1 was totally a stranger and the reasons given for condonation of delay did not constitute the “sufficient cause”, the High Court has totally ignored the same.
In view of the above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Vijay Laxman Bhawe since deceased through his legal heirs v. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and others
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
Case No.: Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4034 of 2023
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
