Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
M/s. Vaishnavi Engineers And Developers Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Navnath Ramkrishna Mhatre And Others – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22nd February, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan whereby an application preferred by the respondent/ original defendant to condone the delay of 9 years 4 months and 18 days in preferring an application to recall the order dated 20th April, 2013 permitting the petitioner/ plaintiff to withdraw the suit being R.C.S. No. 782 of2012, came to be allowed.
3. The background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under:-
(a) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was engaged in the business of real estate development. On 31st May, 2008 a Development Agreement was executed by the respondents and Janak Pandurang Mhatre and Motiram Kachru Mhatre is favour of the petitioners, thereby granting development rights in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed to have parted with consideration of Rs. 47 lakhs under the said agreement, and been put in possession of the suit properties.
(b) Asserting that the defendants were causin
The right to withdraw a suit is absolute unless restricted by law, and a significant delay in seeking recall of such withdrawal must be justified with a bona fide explanation.
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to 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....
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. E....
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
