Laxman Motiram Barai v. Sheikh Kamruzama - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249081

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Condonation of an inordinate delay (2325 days) cannot be granted merely for the asking; the explanation must be reasonable or plausible to enable the court to exercise judicial discretion. (Para 6, 9)

(B) Judicial Discretion - Superior Court Interference - While superior courts generally do not interfere with a positive exercise of discretion by a lower court to condone delay, they may do so if the order is passed without any material or on untenable, arbitrary, or perverse grounds. (Para 7, 9)

(C) Costs - Substitution for Cause - The imposition of costs cannot be substituted for the absence of sufficient reasons to condone delay; costs cannot dispense with the requirement of furnishing a sufficient cause. (Para 10)

Issues: Whether the lower court was justified in condoning an inordinate delay of 2325 days in restoring a civil appeal in the absence of a plausible explanation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to order condoning 2325-day delay in restoring civil appeal — Revision against condonation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Applicant: no proper explanation for delay; non-applicants: no evidence of shifting to Ratnagiri. (Para 4 )

3. Revision allowed; order condoning delay set aside; application for condonation dismissed. (Para 10 )

4. What is the test for sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

Length of delay is irrelevant; the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. The explanation must be reasonable and plausible. (Para 6 , 9 )

5. Can costs imposed on the applicant substitute for the absence of a reasonable explanation for delay?

No. Costs cannot be substituted for absence of reasons to condone delay. The court must still find sufficient cause. (Para 10 )

6. What is the appellate court's approach when reviewing a lower court's discretionary order condoning delay?

When the lower court exercises discretion to condone delay, a superior court should ordinarily not interfere. But if the lower court refuses, the superior court may reassess freely. (Para 7 , 9 )

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The applicant has challenged the order passed by 7th District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.182/2018 whereby the application for condonation of delay of 2325 days for restoring the civil appeal is allowed.

3. The facts in nutshell are as under: -
The non - applicants have preferred the Civil Suit No.75/1989 for grant of temporary injunction and execution of sale deed. The applicant has filed the counter claim seeking possession in said civil suit. The non - applicants have also preferred the suit for specific performance of contract in addition to the said civil suit as Civil Suit No.588/1990 which suit was proceeded ex parte and decree for specific performance of contract was granted and the sale deed was executed in favour of non - applicants on 4.12.1992. As the suit for specific performance of contract is decreed ex parte without effecting service on applicant and without any knowledge of the filing of suit the non - applicants had withdrawn the suit i.e. R.C.S. No.75/1989, however, the counter claim filed by the applicant was allowed to be continued. The counter claim filed by the applicant was allowed by judgment and decree passed on 20.4.1998 whereby the non - applicants were directed to restore the possession of the property to the applicant. Against the judgment and decree passed on 20.4.1998 the non - applicants had preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.732/1998. The appeal filed by the non - applicants remained pending for more than 13 years. As the non - applicants and their Advocate remained absent continuously the appeal filed by the non - applicants came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 2.9.2011. On dismissal of said appeal the non - applicants have filed execution proceedings for execution of decree. In Regular Darkhast No.19/2017 the notices were issued and the non - applicants were served. Thereafter restoration application along with condonation of delay was filed by the non - applicants. The reason given by the non - applicants is that the non - applicant No.1 was in Ratnagiri and he was not knowing about the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has restored the suit by condoning the delay of 2325 days. Therefore, the applicant has filed this revision application.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the non - applicants have not filed on record any reason for delay except the non - applicant No.1 there are three other non - applicants, knowing about the pendency of the proceedings, however, they have not taken any efforts to contact the lawyer. Why lawyer has not taken care of said proceedings, is also not mentioned. Except oral statement there is no any evidence to show that during the said period the non - applicant No.1 shifted to Ratnagiri. Though the non - applicant No.2 was served with notice of execution proceedings in the month of July 2017 the restoration application was filed on 23.2.2018. There is no explanation for delay. Hence prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial Court by allowing this application.

5. Heard both Advocates.

6. The applicant had filed the civil suit along with other two persons. It appears from the record that in application the reason given for the delay is regarding non - applicant No.1 stating that he was the person who was looking after the proceedings and he had shifted to Ratnagiri. The suit which was filed by the non - applicants is withdrawn by them and the counter claim was continued. The application is filed for condoning the delay. It is settled position of law that in absence of any proper explanation for delay, the same cannot be condoned merely for the asking. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible to enable the Court to exercise judicial discretion. It is observed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6835/2014 ( Rajendra Namdeorao Akre V/s. Rajkumar Bhalerao Balbudhe and another ) delivered on 30

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249081

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Vrushali V. Joshi, J.
Laxman Motiram Barai v. Sheikh Kamruzama
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.182/2018

Condonation of inordinate delay requires a reasonable and plausible explanation of 'sufficient cause'; the mere payment of costs cannot substitute for the absence of a valid reason, and superior courts may interfere if the lower court's discretion was exercised without supporting material.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the test for sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

5. Can costs imposed on the applicant substitute for the absence of a reasonable explanation for delay?

6. What is the appellate court's approach when reviewing a lower court's discretionary order condoning delay?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249081

BOMBAY HIGH COURTVrushali V. Joshi, J.Laxman Motiram Barai v. Sheikh KamruzamaMiscellaneous Civil Appeal No.182/2018

Condonation of inordinate delay requires a reasonable and plausible explanation of 'sufficient cause'; the mere payment of costs cannot substitute for the absence of a valid reason, and superior courts may interfere if the lower court's discretion was exercised without supporting material.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the test for sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

5. Can costs imposed on the applicant substitute for the absence of a reasonable explanation for delay?

6. What is the appellate court's approach when reviewing a lower court's discretionary order condoning delay?

Cases Referred (3)

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Vrushali V. Joshi, J.
Laxman Motiram Barai v. Sheikh Kamruzama
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.182/2018