The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, expressed concerns over the potential misuse of such a precedent, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The bench stated “If the trial court’s approach is approved, it would open the floodgates for any Tom, Dick, and Harry, regardless of their involvement in the suit, to file a condonation of delay application for the restoration of the suit.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India set aside an order on May 8th, passed by a trial court in Maharashtra, which permitted a third party to file a condonation of delay application for the restoration of a land acquisition suit. The Court also quashed a judgment by the Bombay High Court, which had previously upheld the trial court’s decision.
READ ALSO: Delhi HC Dismiss State Plea To Condone Delay of 28 Years In Filling Appeal
The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, expressed concerns over the potential misuse of such a precedent, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The Court expressed its concern, stating,
“If the trial court’s approach is approved, it would open the floodgates for any Tom, Dick, and Harry, regardless of their involvement in the suit, to file a condonation of delay application for the restoration of the suit.”
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the decisions before the trial court and before the Bombay High Court. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, argued that the trial court should not have entertained the application from a third party since they were not directly involved in the proceedings. He further contended that the trial court had already been dealing with a pending application since November 2019.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Questions Delay in Listing Adani Power Case: Seeking Accountability
The Court deemed the trial court’s decision to permit the delay application as legally unsustainable.
“In addition, a request for condonation of delay in submitting an application to revive the aforementioned suit, initiated by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, has been pending since November 7, 2019. It is perplexing why the trial court chose to entertain the application from respondent No. 1 after a lapse of two years from the application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3,” it further stated.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate CA Sundaram, argued that the third-party applicant had acquired the right to be a party to the suit through an unregistered agreement for sale made in 2009. They claimed that the applicant’s filing of the condonation of delay application was justified, as the original plaintiffs were not actively pursuing the case.
The Supreme Court refrained from commenting on the agreement of sale but deemed the trial court’s order allowing the delay application legally unsustainable. The Court noted that an application for condonation of delay, filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, had been pending since November 7, 2019. It questioned the necessity for the trial court to entertain the application filed by the first respondent after a two-year delay, considering the existence of the earlier applications by the second and third respondents.
Case Title: Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased v. P And S Nirman Pvt Ltd
