Explore the intricate legal proceedings surrounding a contentious land ownership dispute between Vijay Laxman Bhawe and P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Uncover the twists and turns of the case as appellants and respondents navigate the complexities of condonation of delay, restoration of suits, and legal heir representation. Delve into the nuances of Indian civil law as this high-stakes battle unfolds in the Supreme Court of India, shaping the fate of land in Sonkhar Village, Thane, Maharashtra.
Facts
- The trial court allowed the restoration application filed by Original Name, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/-.
- The delay of 9 years and 11 months was condoned by the trial court in the restoration application.
- Aggrieved by the trial court’s order, the appellants filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court.
- The High Court dismissed the revision application challenging the trial court’s order.
- The Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002 was sought to be restored through the application filed by Original Name.
- The lands at Sonkhar Village, Thane, Maharashtra, were the subject of the ownership dispute in the suit.
- The legal heirs of the original plaintiff filed an application for condonation of delay in applying for bringing legal heirs of the plaintiff on record.
- The legal heirs of the original plaintiff entered into an Agreement for Sale with the appellant
- The legal heirs of the original plaintiff appointed the appellant as their constituted Attorney
- The application filed by the legal heirs for restoration of the subject suit is still pending adjudication.
Also Read: Dr. Kulwant Singh vs. Maternal Grandmother: Custody Dispute Supreme Court Judgment
Arguments
- Respondent No.1 is a stranger to the proceedings.
- The trial court erred in entertaining an application from a private party.
- Shri Rohatgi, Senior Counsel for the appellants, argued against the trial court’s decision.
- Respondent has accrued a right in the case through an Agreement for Sale in 2009 with the legal heirs of the original plaintiff.
- Due to inaction of original plaintiff’s legal heirs in pursuing the application for delay condonation, respondent filed the application for restoration.
- No interference is warranted in the orders of the trial court and the High Court as per the respondent’s counsel.
Also Read: Analyzing the Legal Journey: Jasobanta Sahu vs. State of Orissa – A Landmark Case
Analysis
- The trial court’s acceptance of the application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of delay in restoration of the suit is deemed illegal.
- An application for restoration of the suit filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in 2019 is still pending, making the subsequent application by the stranger unwarranted.
- High Court ignored the appellants’ argument that the stranger had no legal standing and the reasons for delay were insufficient.
- The trial court should have solely considered the application by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff instead of entertaining the stranger’s application after a two-year delay.
- The stranger, not being a party to the suit, should not have been allowed to file an application for restoration.
- Expresses reservation in commenting on the Agreement for Sale to avoid prejudicing the rights of the parties.
- The orders of the trial court and the High Court are not sustainable in law
- The reasoning provided for condoning the inordinate delay does not meet the criteria of ‘sufficient cause’
- The judgments of the trial court and the High Court regarding condonation of delay may not be valid based on established legal principles
Also Read: Analyzing the Acquittal: Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh vs. The State of Kerala
Decision
- The appeal is allowed with no costs imposed.
- Judgment dated 14 December 2022 by the High Court and order dated 4 May 2022 by the trial court are quashed and set aside.
- Pending applications stand disposed of.
- The application filed by respondents MCA No 1082 of 2019 will be considered by the trial court on its merits in accordance with the law.
Case Title: VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HERIS Vs. P AND S NIRMAN PVT. LTD. (2024 INSC 394)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006136-006136 – 2024
