Sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delays in legal proceedings; mere lack of legal knowledge is not enough.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3 This petition takes exception to the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10/09/2018 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai ('MRT' for short) in Application/for Condonation of Delay in TNC/REV/RAG/L-123 OF 2017, thereby condoning the delay of 6 years and three days in preferring the Revision Application.

4 Brief facts as disclosed in the petition are as under: (I) The Petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 221 of 2008 against the Vendor of the Respondent Ganesh Gunaji Jadhav for declaration. By an order of the Civil Court, the said Ganesh Jadhav was restrained from conveying the property to the Third Party.

(II) Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of Application made by Petitioner cancelled Sale Permission granted in favour of the respondent by an order dated 25/06/2009. In an Appeal preferred by Respondent, the matter was remanded.

(III) On remand, Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order.

(IV) The Appeal by the Respondents against Order dated 15/01/2010 of the Sub-Divisional Officer came to be dismissed.

(V) Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner is decreed and Misc. Appl. No. 24 of 2012 preferred by Respondent came to be dismissed on 14/02/2017. Writ Petition St. No. 13607 of 2017 challenging the Order dated 14/02/2017 came to be rejected by the High Court, by Order dated 11/12/2017.

(VI) Pending the Writ Petition, Respondent filed Revision Application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging Order dated 15/01/2010 along with Application for Condonation of Delay.

(VII) It is the case of the petitioner herein that he filed reply to the said application and prayed for rejection of the said application. However, respondent MRT allowed the application for condonation of delay thereby condoning the delay of 6 years and 3 days caused in filing Revision No. TNC/REV/RAG/L-123/2017. Hence, this petition.

5 The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are:

(I) Application for Condonation of delay filed by the Respondent in paragraph 5 relies upon Section 15 of the Limitation Act which is not applicable in Revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in view of Section 79 of MTAL Act.

(II) Assuming benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act can be given, making the same applicable to the Respondent, Sub- Section 2 of Section 14 provides for exclusion of time, during the period of proceeding was pending and the day, the same was instituted and the day on which it ended (Explanation (a) to Section 14 of Limitation Act )

(III) Section 15 of Indian Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time from the day on which order was made and the day on which it was withdrawn.

(IV) The Respondent has pleaded in paragraph 3 sufficient cause on the ground “lack of legal knolwedge” “wrong advise”, “impressiuon of Respondent” and “fresh legal advice” (paras 3, 4 and 5) of delay Condonation application. The same cannot be deemed to be sufficient cause as the delay on the part of Respondent constituted dilatory tactics, want of bonafides, deliberate in action or negligence.

(V) Assuming that the court passing the impugned Order had discretion, but the same has to be exercised to advance substantial justice. The conduct of the Respondent purchasing the property inspite of injunctin order passed by the Competent Court and colluding with Defendant, in such situation disentitles him for executing direction in his favour.

6 In support of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhatacharee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nagar Academy & Ors [(2013) 12 SCC 649].

7 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon reasons assigned by the MRT in the impugned order for condonation of delay and submits that, since the respondents approached to the wrong Forum