Back
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN
Sethia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal arises from an order passed by the High Court that condoned a significant delay of 5,250 days in filing an application for restoration of a dismissed appeal. The High Court had directed the restoration of the appeal for a decision on merits despite the absence of the non-applicants and without providing a reason for the delay (!) (!) .
The original appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with a court order to file the pleadings within three months. The appeal was listed before the High Court on 20.02.2008, and the dismissal was based on non-compliance with this deadline (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that when a court considers condoning a long delay, it must recognize that time does not stand still and that third parties may have developed rights or interests in the litigation during the period of delay. The Court highlighted the importance of considering the potential involvement of third parties when such delays are sought to be condoned (!) .
The Court found that the High Court's order condoning the delay was not legally sustainable because it did not consider the involvement of third parties or provide reasons for the delay. The order was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the application for condonation of delay, with the possibility of impleading third parties if necessary (!) .
The Court directed that the application for condonation of delay be decided afresh after hearing the appellant/developer, who had commenced development activities during the period the appeal was dismissed. The parties were instructed to appear before the High Court on a specified date for further proceedings (!) (!) .
The decision underscores that courts must exercise caution and consider all relevant circumstances, including third-party rights, when dealing with applications for restoration and condonation of delays, especially after a long period has elapsed (!) .
These points encapsulate the Court's reasoning, the procedural history, and the directions for future proceedings related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal status and dismissal. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. court's caution against delays and third-party rights considerations. (Para 4 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. setting aside of the high court's order. (Para 14) |
| 4. directions for future hearings. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of an order dated 25.10.2023, passed by the High Court1[High Court of Judicature at Bombay] in Interim Application No. 19020 of 2022 in First Appeal2[First Appeal No. 1483 of 1988] filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court condoned huge delay of 5,250 days in filing the application for restoration and directed the restoration of the first appeal for decision on merits that too in the absence of the non- applicants, just noticing that their private service is complete in view of an affidavit filed by the applicant.
3. The first appeal was deemed to be dismissed for non- prosecution on 20.05.2008 as per order dated 20.02.2008, passed by the High Court, mentioning that in case the compilation of pleadings is not filed within three months, the appeal shall stand dismissed for non- prosecution withou
Appeal – Whenever delay of a long period of time is sought to be condoned, Court should not rule out involvement of third parties in litigation.
Judicial discretion to condone delays must favor adjudication on merits, particularly where substantive efforts have been made by the litigant.
The court emphasized the necessity of a communication system for litigants to prevent delays in justice, allowing the restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere invocation of a liberal approach unaccompanied by due diligence will not suffice.
Approaching the court expeditiously and reluctance to condone unexplained delays and inordinate laches in seeking remedies.
The primary legal point established is that the responsibility for compliance with court orders lies with the counsel, and the litigant cannot be held accountable for the counsel's negligence.
(1) – Limitation period – Length of delay is a relevant matter which court must take into consideration while considering whether delay should be condoned or not – While considering plea for condona....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the emphasis on advancing substantial justice.
The importance of exercising discretion judiciously in condoning delay, as established in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
