Bombay High Court: In a review petition challenging an appellate order, a Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that a delay of 645 days in filing the petition could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (‘Limitation Act’). The Court noted that the explanations offered, such as the search for expert counsel, summer vacation, a family wedding, and attempts at settlement, were vague and unsupported, and therefore did not amount to “sufficient cause.” Consequently, the interim application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the review petition stood dismissed.
Background:
The matter arose from a change report of 2004, which was decided in appeal in 2024. The applicants sought to review the appellate order dated 06-02-2024 but filed the review petition only on 18-12-2025, resulting in a delay of 645 days.
The applicants contended that the delay was occasioned due to several circumstances. They argued that the matter involved complex questions concerning the scope of appellate powers under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, the validity of appointments under a Scheme framed by the Court, and the propriety of a remand order under Order XLI Rule 23A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. They submitted that considerable time was consumed in identifying suitable counsel with expertise in trust and scheme-related litigation, holding conferences, and obtaining legal opinion.
Further, they pointed to intervening summer vacations of the High Court and personal circumstances, including a wedding in the family, which disrupted their ability to attend to litigation. They also claimed to have made genuine efforts to resolve the dispute amicably by addressing communications to the other side in March, May, July, and October 2025, but receiving either unsatisfactory replies or no response. On these grounds, they urged that the delay be condoned, stressing that the issue raised an important question of law and that the statutory period of 30 days was too short.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the reasons advanced did not constitute “sufficient cause.” It was noted that the statement regarding engaging a counsel who is an expert in trust matters and, therefore, considerable time was consumed in identifying such a counsel, cannot be a ground which would constitute “sufficient cause,” since there is no supporting document for this particular cause, making it a general and vague statement offered to explain the delay of 645 days. The Court further observed that the reasons relating to summer vacation and a family wedding were statements without substantiation, as even during vacation, if urgency is shown, filing permission is granted.
The Court highlighted that the attempt to settle the matter was not made within the limitation period provided under the Limitation Act, but almost after 1 year from the date of the impugned judgment and much after the expiry of limitation period. It was further noted that the argument that the delay was short compared to the two decades taken to decide the appeal was misconceived, since condonation must be examined only with reference to the period after the order was passed.
The Court observed that the submission that the issue involved an important question of law was self-contradictory, as such importance required speedier action rather than delay. The Court also rejected the contention that the statutory period of 30 days was too short, holding that the legislature had consciously factored the time needed for consultation and decision-making.
Finally, the Court noted that the phrase “sufficient cause” had been recently considered by the Supreme Court in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, and reiterated that the causes shown in the application at hand does not constitute “sufficient cause” but is only an attempt which would constitute “excuses” and that too without any supporting thereof.
In view of this, the Court dismissed the interim application, and consequently, the review petition did not survive and was disposed of.
[Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala v. Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, Interim Application No. 892 of 2026, decided on 02-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Tushad Kakalia a/w Anjali Sharma, Suraj Agarwal i/by Crawford Bayley
For the Respondents: Kashish Singhi