Court Finds No "Sufficient Cause" for 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition
In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court dismissed an interim application seeking condonation of a 645-day delay in filing a review petition concerning a judgment delivered in February 2024. The case, Vinod Kumar Chetram Ganeriwala Adult v. Khushal Chandra Lalita Prasad Poddar, revolved around complex legal issues under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the propriety of a remand order under Order XLI Rule 23A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Presiding Judge Jitendra Jain, J., found the reasons provided by the applicants insufficient to warrant condonation under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates a 30-day period for filing a review petition. The applicants cited difficulties in identifying specialized legal counsel, intervening summer vacations, personal circumstances such as a family wedding, and attempts at an amicable resolution with the respondents as reasons for the delay.
The court noted that the reasons presented lacked specificity and supporting documentation, rendering them vague and general. The applicants' search for specialized counsel and personal disruptions were deemed inadequate as "sufficient cause," particularly given the absence of detailed timelines or evidence supporting these claims. Furthermore, attempts at amicable resolution were initiated after the lapse of the statutory limitation period, undermining their validity as reasons for delay.
Judge Jain emphasized that the pendency of prior proceedings and the significance of legal questions involved could not justify delay after the limitation period had expired. The court also dismissed the argument that the statutory 30-day period was insufficient, underscoring the legislative intent and framework established in the Limitation Act.
Referencing the Supreme Court's stance in Shivamma (Dead) By LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, the court reiterated that "sufficient cause" must be demonstrated with concrete reasons, not excuses lacking evidentiary support. Consequently, the interim application was dismissed, and the associated review petition was disposed of.
Bottom Line:
Limitation Act - Delay in filing review petition - Sufficient cause must be demonstrated with concrete and supported reasons; vague and general statements are insufficient for condonation of delay.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Article 124, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 Section 70, Order XLI Rule 23A CPC.
