Entertaining stranger’s plea for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of subject suit is totally unsustainable in law, rules Top Court
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [08-05-2024]

Read Order: VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS v. P & S NIRMAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6136 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth 

New Delhi, May 9, 2024: While considering a civil dispute pertaining to the ownership of the suit land, the Supreme Court has held that an application filed at the behest of the stranger, who is not a party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. The Top Court opined that if such approach is approved, any “Tom, Dick and Harry” would be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay even if he is not a party to the suit.

The appeal, before the Top Court, was concerned with certain lands situated at Sonkhar Village, in Taluka and District Thane, Maharashtra (suit land). The Government of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer acquired the subject land for public purpose, and handed over the said lands for development/execution to City Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO). 

In the year 2002, Special Civil Suit(subject suit) was filed by the original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas Thakkar (Kanani) (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs respondent Nos. 2 and 3), in the trial court against the Government of Maharashtra , Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vijay Laxman Bhawe (Defendant No.3) (since deceased and now represented through his legal heirs – viz. appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein), Union of India and City Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO) for relief of declaration that the acquisition of suit land is illegal, null and void. In the alternative, it was also urged that if the court holds that acquisition is good then declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 12½ % Gaonthan Extension Scheme, in lieu of acquired lands as per the Gaonthan Extension Scheme of CIDCO.

In the year 2005, the original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas Thakkar (Kanani) passed away.The legal heirs of the original plaintiff, through their Power of Attorney holder filed an application for condonation of delay in applying for bringing legal heirs of the plaintiff on record, and filed another application for bringing the legal heirs of the plaintiff on record in the subject suit.

The trial court allowed the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for bringing the legal heirs of the plaintiff on record in the subject suit. However, it dismissed the subject suit for want of prosecution.

The appeal, before the Top Court, was filed challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the revision application filed by the appellants herein, challenging the order of the Trial Court.

The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta found that the approach of the trial court in entertaining the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 was totally unsustainable in law. The claim of respondent No.1 was on an unregistered Agreement for Sale. 

“However, 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. 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”, the Bench said. 

Noting that the 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 was pending since November 7, 2019, the Bench opined that the trial court could have very well decided the application filed by respondents No.2 and 3 on its own merits in accordance with law. 

“We do not appreciate the propriety in keeping the application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in 2019 pending and deciding the subsequent application filed by respondent No.1 in October 2021 within a period of six months. We do not wish to say anything more on it”, it held.

The Bench was of the prima facie view that the reasoning given by the trial court as well as the High Court for condoning such an inordinate delay would not come under the ambit of “sufficient cause” as has been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments.

Thus, finding the order of the trial court as well as the High Court to be unsustainable in law, the Bench allowed the appeal.