A party seeking to condone substantial delay in filing an application must demonstrate sufficient cause, particularly when unaware of a party's demise.

ORDER :

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.M.Sheth on behalf of the applicant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Sheth on behalf of respondents no.1.3 to 1.7. Though served, none appears on behalf of the proposed respondent no.2.1 to 2.7.

2. By way of this application, the applicant seeks for condoning delay of 3467 days in filing civil application for bringing legal heirs of opponent no.2.1.

3. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that while in the original petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the SSRD, neither during pendency of the proceedings before the SSRD nor at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had any idea about the demise of the respondent no.2.1.

3.1. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Sheth on behalf of the applicant that it is only after this Court had issued notice in the main writ petition and the endorsement was shown as regards respondent no.2.1 having expired, that the petitioners came to know about the demise of the respondent no.2.1.

3.2. It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.K.M.Sheth that as such, the applicant – original petitioner was never intimated in any manner whatsoever as regards the demise of the original respondent no.2.1 and whereas, it is further submitted that even insofar as the learned advocate representing respondent no.1.3 to 1.7, though the said respondents were part of the same family to which the respondent no.2.1 belonged, yet, since there were internal differences between the family members, therefore, learned advocate for the respondents no.1.3 to 1.7 had neither been intimated about the demise of the original respondent no.2.1 nor as regards the details of the legal heirs / representatives of the deceased respondent no.2.1.

3.3. It also appears that the petitioner, since he did not receive any intimation as regards the demise of respondent no.2.1 and the legal heirs of respondent no.2.1, therefore, the original petitioner had made an application under the RTI to the Kurai Gram Panchayat, Taluka: Karjan and whereas, it is in response to such an application that the original petitioner received copy of the death certificate as well as the family tree of the respondent no.2.1 from which the names of the legal heirs and their addresses could be discerned.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Sheth would submit that in spite of his best efforts, he had not been intimated about the details of the legal heirs of the original respondent no.2.1 and whereas, it is further submit that the aspect of demise of respondent no.2.1 had never been intimated by the parties whom learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Sheth is representing and who admittedly, according to learned advocate for the petitioner, are family members.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, it would appear to this Court that while the delay in preferring the application for joining the legal heirs is substantially huge, yet, considering the fact situation more particularly considering the aspect of the petitioners never being intimated even in the proceedings of SSRD as regards the demise of original respondent no.2.1 and whereas, having regard to the fact that upon getting to know the demise of respondent no.2.1 since the endorsement on notice was of such nature that applicant – original petitioner had taken reasonable steps to get the details of the legal heirs of respondent no.2.1 and whereas, the said details had been provided by the officials at the Kurai Gram Panchayat. It is after such details were made available that the present application for condoning delay had been preferred.

6. Having regard to the discussion hereinabove, to this Court, it would appear that while as noted hereinabove, the delay is substantial, yet, it would also appear that a sufficient caus