Delay In the Restoration Application Has Been Condoned by The Supreme Court, Invalidating the Verdict of Both the Trial Court and The High Court in the Land Acquisition Case
Case Title – Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 INSC 394
Case Number – Civil Appeal Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 4034 of 2023
Dated on – 8th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice B. R. Gavai
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 INSC 394, whirls around a dispute concerning certain lands in Sonkhar Village, Thane, Maharashtra, acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for public purposes. Special Civil Suit No. 269/2002 was instituted contesting the legality of the land acquisition. The original Appellant died in the year 2005, and his legal heirs sought to continue the suit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution in the year 2011. Various applications for condonation of delay and restoration of the suit were instituted subsequently by different parties, including the legal heirs and a private company claiming to be an assignee of the legal heirs of the original Appellant.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the decision of the Trial Court to entertain the application instituted by the private company for condonation of delay?
Whether the delay in instituting the application for restoration would be condoned based on the “Sufficient Cause”?
Whether the decision of the High Court affirming the decision of the Trial Court was sustainable?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Trial Court erred in entertaining the application from a party (the private company) not involved in the original suit.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the original suit was frivolous, and the decision of the Trial Court to entertain the application was unjust.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the delay in instituting the application for restoration of the suit should not have been condoned.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the private company had acquired rights through an Agreement for Sale with the legal heirs of the original Appellant.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that since the legal heirs did not pursue their application for restoration of the suit diligently, the private company was justified in filing its own application.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the decision of the Trial Court was correct and that it should not be intervened with.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 INSC 394, observed that the decision of the Tril Court to entertain the application of the Private Company was improper as it was a stranger to the proceedings of this case. The court also observed that the delay in filing the application for the restoration of the suit by the legal heirs was pending since the year 2019, and that there was no compelling reason for the Trial Court to entertain the application of the private court later. The court in this present case, ruled that the reasons cited by the Trial Cort and the High Court for condoning the delay did not constitute “sufficient cause” as per the established legal principles. Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and directed the Trial Court to consider the application instituted by the legal heirs on its own merits. The court disposed off the pending applications without costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana