2024 INSC 394 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4034 of 2023)

VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE SINCE DECEASED

THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P & S NIRMAN PVT. LTD.
AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 14th

December 2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay (for short, “High Court”) in Civil Revision Application

No. 269 of 2022, whereby the High Court dismissed the

revision application filed by the appellants herein, challenging

the order dated 4th May 2022, passed by the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Thane, (for short, “trial court”) in Civil Misc.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Application No. 1473 of 2021, which was filed by respondent

Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.05.08
15:07:16 IST
Reason:

No. 1 herein, for condonation of delay in filing of the

1
application for restoration, and seeking thereby to restore the

Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002, which came to be dismissed

for want of prosecution by the trial court on 3 rd November

2011.

3. Vide an order dated 24th April 2023, this Court issued

notice to the respondents and stayed the proceedings before

the trial court.

4. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the present

appeal are as under:

4.1 The present appeal is concerned with certain lands

situated at Sonkhar Village, in Taluka and District Thane,

Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”). There are

competing claims with respect to the ownership of the suit

land.

4.2 The Government of Maharashtra, through the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre, Thane, vide Award

Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1986 and 1988, respectively, acquired

the subject land for public purpose, and handed over the said

lands for development/execution to City Industrial

Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO).

2
4.3 In the year 2002, Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002

(hereinafter referred to as “subject suit”) was filed by the

original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas Thakkar (Kanani) (since

deceased and now represented by his legal heirs respondent

Nos. 2 and 3), in the trial court against the Government of

Maharashtra (defendant No. 1/respondent No. 4 herein),

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thane (defendant No.

2/respondent No. 5 herein), Vijay Laxman Bhawe (Defendant

No.3) (since deceased and now represented through his legal

heirs – viz. appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein), Union of India

(defendant No. 4/ respondent No. 6 herein) and City Industrial

Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO) (defendant

No. 5/ respondent No. 7 herein) for relief of declaration that

the acquisition of suit land is illegal, null and void, and in the

alternative, if the court holds that acquisition is good then

declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 12½ % Gaonthan

Extension Scheme, in lieu of acquired lands as per the

Gaonthan Extension Scheme of CIDCO.

4.4 In the year 2005, the original plaintiff – Pravin Jamndas

Thakkar (Kanani) passed away.

3
4.5 The legal heirs of the original plaintiff, through their

Power of Attorney holder, one Mr. Arunkumar Jayantilal

Mucchalla, filed an application for condonation of delay in

applying for bringing legal heirs of the plaintiff on record, and

filed another application for bringing the legal heirs of the

plaintiff on record in the subject suit.

4.6 Vide order dated 28th November 2006, the trial court

allowed the application for condonation of delay as well as the

application for bringing the legal heirs of the plaintiff on record

in the subject suit. However, vide order dated 3rd November

2011, the trial court dismissed the subject suit for want of

prosecution.

4.7 On 7th November 2019, respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e., the

legal heirs of the plaintiff, filed an application, viz., Misc. Civil

Application (MCA) No. 1082 of 2019 in the subject suit,

seeking condonation of delay of 8 years and 4 days in filing an

application for restoration of subject suit. This application is

still pending adjudication.

4.8 On 12th October 2021, i.e., during the pendency of the

aforesaid application filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff,

respondent No. 1, a private limited company, claiming to be

4
the “assignee” from the legal heirs of the plaintiff, filed an

application viz., Misc. Civil Application (MCA) No. 1473 of 2021

in the subject suit, seeking condonation of delay of 9 years and

11 months in filing the application for restoration of the

subject suit. It was the case of respondent No. 1, that it had

entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009,

with the legal heirs of the plaintiff, i.e., respondents No. 2 and

3 and agreed to procure benefit arising out of the subject land

and in lieu thereof had paid part consideration of Rs. 1.51

crore to the legal heirs of the plaintiff, i.e., respondents No. 2

and 3 alongwith an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 8th

December 2009, thereby appointing respondent No. 1 as their

constituted Attorney for doing all such acts, deeds and things

to implement the Agreement for Sale.

4.9 Vide order dated 4th May 2022, the trial court allowed the

restoration application being MCA No. 1473 of 2021 filed by

respondent No.1, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.

15,000/-, thereby condoning the delay of 9 years and 11

months.

4.10 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court dated

4th May 2022, the appellants filed Civil Revision Application

5
No. 269 of 2022 before the High Court.

4.11 The High Court, vide impugned judgment, dismissed the

civil revision application filed by the appellants, upheld the

order of the trial court and only enhanced the costs awarded

from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

4.12 Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

5. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri C.A.

Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

6. Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants submitted that the learned trial court has totally

erred in entertaining the application filed at the behest of a

private party. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is totally a

stranger to the proceedings. He submitted that, when an

application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, i.e.

respondents No. 2 and 3 herein being MCA No. 1082 of 2019

for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration

of the subject suit was pending since 7th November 2019, there

was no occasion for the learned trial court to have considered

the application filed by a stranger subsequently on 12th

6
October 2021.

7. Shri Rohatgi further submitted that, as a matter of fact,

the subject suit itself is a frivolous one. The suit land belonged

to the predecessors of the appellants and it was acquired by

the State and the compensation duly received by the

appellants. The proceedings for enhancement are also pending

before the High Court. It is submitted that entertaining the

application at the instance of a stranger for condonation of

delay in filing an application for restoration of a frivolous suit

is nothing else but a travesty of justice. It is submitted that,

for the same reasons, the judgment of the High Court is also

not sustainable.

8. Shri Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that

respondent No.1 has accrued a right in the lis on account of

an Agreement for Sale dated 8th December 2009 entered into

between it and the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. It is

submitted that, since respondents No.2 and 3 were not

prosecuting the application for condonation of delay in filing

the application for restoration of the subject suit, respondent

No.1 was justified in filing such an application. It is submitted

7
that, in any case, no interference is warranted in the

concurrent orders of the trial court and the High Court.

9. We find that the approach of the trial court in

entertaining the application filed at the behest of respondent

No.1 is totally unsustainable in law. The claim of respondent

No.1 is on an unregistered Agreement for Sale dated 8 th

December 2009. We do not wish to comment anything upon

the said Agreement for Sale inasmuch as the same may

prejudice the rights of the parties. However, entertaining an

application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of

delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit

is totally unsustainable in law. Admittedly, respondent No.1

has not even been impleaded in the subject suit. As such, the

application filed at the behest of the stranger, who is not a

party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. If the approach as

adopted by the trial court is approved, any Tom, Dick and

Harry would be permitted to move an application for

condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of

the suit even if he is not a party to the subject suit.

10. Apart from that, an application for condonation of delay

in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit at the

8
behest of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff is very much

pending since 7th November 2019. It is difficult to understand

as to what was the compelling necessity for the trial court to

have entertained the application filed at the behest of

respondent No.1 after a period of two years from the date of

filing of the application by respondents No.2 and 3. The trial

court could have very well decided the application filed by

respondents No.2 and 3 on its own merits in accordance with

law. We do not appreciate the propriety in keeping the

application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in

2019 pending and deciding the subsequent application filed

by respondent No.1 in October 2021 within a period of six

months. We do not wish to say anything more on it.

11. Though, it was urged by the appellants before the High

Court that respondent No.1 was totally a stranger and the

reasons given for condonation of delay did not constitute the

“sufficient cause”, and though the judgments of this Court

were relied upon to contend as to why the application ought

not to have been allowed by the trial court, the High Court has

totally ignored the same.

9
12. In light of the view taken by us, though it is not necessary

for us to consider in detail as to whether the reasoning given

by the trial court and the High Court as to whether respondent

No.1 had made out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of

delay is correct or not, we are of the prima facie view that the

reasoning given by the trial court as well as the High Court for

condoning such an inordinate delay will not come under the

ambit of “sufficient cause” as has been delineated by this

Court in a catena of judgments.

13. We find that the order of the trial court as well as the

High Court are not sustainable in law. The appeal is therefore

allowed. The judgment dated 14th December 2022, passed by

the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 2022,

and the order dated 4th May 2022, passed by the trial court in

Civil Misc. Application No. 1473 of 2021 are quashed and set

aside.

14. However, we clarify that the application filed by

respondents No.2 and 3 being MCA No. 1082 of 2019 would

be considered by the trial court on its own merits in

accordance with law.

10
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No

costs.

…….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]

…….........................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 08, 2024.

11