Bombay High Court
Barkat Phidahusen Sohil And Anr vs Milind Chandrashekhar Modak And Ors on 10 January, 2024
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2024:BHC-AS:2466
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.20333 OF 2022
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.18269 OF 2022
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.18269 OF 2022
SHRI. BARKAT PHIDAHUSEN SOHIL AND ORS. )...APPLICANTS
V/s.
MILIND CHANDRASHEKHAR MODAK AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.Surel Shah a/w. Mr.Sachin Gite, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.P.J.Thorat a/w. Ms.Nazia Sheikh i/by Ms.Aditi S. Naikare, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1, 4 and 5A to 5C.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON : 20th JULY 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th JANUARY 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. This Interim Application seeks condonation of delay of 2 years
and 227 days caused in filing the Civil Revision Application against the
judgment and order dated 31 st July 2019 passed by the Principal
District Judge, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No.85 of 2013 whereby
the Appeal filed by the Applicants was dismissed and judgment and
order dated 1st January 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nashik in Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 1997 was confirmed. The Trial
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
Court had directed the Applicants to put the Respondents in possession
of the Suit property and also to pay arrears of Rs.7880/- to the
Respondents. The impugned judgment and order in the Civil Appeal
was passed on 31st July 2019. The Applicants made an application for
certified copy on 1st August 2019 and received it on 31st August 2019.
2. It is the case of the Applicants that amongst the Applicants, the
Applicant no.1 is an old person and was 83 years old at the relevant
time and that he was not keeping well and suffering from age related
issues and therefore, after receipt of the certified copy of the impugned
judgment and order, could not immediately consult their Advocate for
taking appropriate action against the impugned judgment and order.
That, all the Applicants are senior citizens and have crossed the age of
70 years. That, therefore, it was difficult for all the Applicants to take
decision in respect of the present matter. That, some of the Applicants
were also consulting and taking opinion of some Advocates in respect
of the subject matter, but in the meantime, due to the outbreak of
Covid-19 pandemic, the Applicants could not take any steps for filing
the appropriate proceedings. That, thereafter, it became difficult for the
Applicants to approach the Advocate and come to Mumbai to take out
appropriate proceedings against the impugned judgment and order. It
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
is submitted that the Applicants were also informed that during that
period, the Courts were also not functioning and the Applicants would
get benefit of this pandemic period for the delay caused in filing the
present proceedings and hence, during the said time, the Applicants
could not file any proceedings.
3. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, original copy of impugned
judgment and order also got misplaced by the Applicants and the
Applicants only had xerox copies. That, after the Covid-19 pandemic
got better around April 2022, the Applicants decided to file appropriate
proceedings to challenge the impugned judgment and order. In
furtherance thereof, the Applicants again met some Advocates and
decided to file proceedings before the Bombay High Court. However,
again due to the age and health related issues of the Applicant no.1,
some more delay was caused. It is the case of the Applicants that they
were thereafter informed that for filing proceedings before the Bombay
High Court, the Applicants would have to give certified copies of the
impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the Applicants filed a fresh
application for getting certified copies on 25 th June 2022. That, the
Applicants received the fresh certified copies on 5 th July 2022. It is
submitted that the Applicants have thereafter immediately filed the
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
Civil Revision Application along with this Application for condonation
of delay on 26th July 2022. Mr.Surel Shah, learned Counsel for the
Applicants, submits that the delay caused in filing the Civil Revision
Application is not intentional and deliberate and the same has been
caused due to the facts and circumstances elaborated in the
Application, particularly, due to the state of the health of the Applicant
no.1. Learned Counsel would submit that the Applicants have a very
good case on merits and are likely to succeed. That, no prejudice
would be caused to the Respondents, if the delay in filing the Civil
Revision Application is condoned, whereas the Applicants would suffer
great prejudice if the delay is not condoned. Mr.Surel Shah would
submit that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against
the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar
of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by
adopting a liberal approach towards sufficient cause to condone the
delay and this Court may also adopt the liberal approach to the delay
caused in filing the Civil Revision Application as the Applicants have a
good case on merits. Mr.Surel Shah has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
vs. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers1 in support of his
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
contention. Learned Counsel would also submit that sufficient cause is
a relative fact dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case
and as long as the Applicants display bonafides, have not been
negligent and the delay occasioned is not such that condoning it would
seriously prejudice the other party, then the Court should condone the
delay. Mr.Surel Shah also relies upon the the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and
Others2. He therefore submits that the delay in filing the Civil Revision
Application be condoned and the Civil Revision Application be heard.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Pradeep Thorat, learned Counsel for the
Respondents, at the outset, would submit that the Interim Application
is misconceived and no sufficient cause has been made out for
condonation of delay. That, the reasons for the same are vague and do
not constitute sufficient cause.
5. Mr.Thorat would submit that the Applicants were aware that the
decree was passed by the Principal District Judge and although the
certified copies were obtained immediately on 14 th August 2019, the
Applicants had preferred not to challenge the same within the
2 (2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 321
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
prescribed period of limitation, and therefore, the said Interim
Application ought to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
6. Learned Counsel would submit that the submissions with respect
to the the ill-health of the Applicant no.1 and that therefore they could
not consult the Advocate are completely denied. Mr.Thorat would
submit that the other submissions made on behalf of the Applicants
have been denied in the reply that has been filed on behalf of the
Respondents. That, no sufficient cause has been made out for
condonation of delay. The Applicants have only adopted these tactics to
delay execution of the decree. The reason of outbreak of Covid-19
pandemic cannot be accepted as the impugned judgment and order is
of July 2019 which is much prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19
pandemic. That, the old age of the Applicant no.1 cannot be a
justification especially when there are four Applicants. That, there is a
huge delay of about three years and the only explanation given is old
age and health issue of Applicant no.1. That, there is no supporting
document to show that the Applicant no.1 was suffering from any
illness and that the Applicants have only given vague reasons for the
delay caused which would not constitute sufficient cause.
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
7. It is submitted that the Applicants have deliberately filed fresh
application for obtaining certified copies only to justify the delay
caused in filing the present proceedings. That, the Applicants were not
diligent in filing the present proceedings and do not deserve any
equitable relief from this Court.
8. Mr.Thorat would submit that the Suit for eviction was filed in
1997 on the ground of non-user, arrears of rent and unlawful sub-
letting. That, the Applicants have parted with possession of the Suit
premises without the consent of the landlord and have acquired
alternate premises. That, the judgment and decree dated 1 st January
2013 in the Suit for eviction directed the Applicants to hand over
possession of the Suit premises. That the said judgment and decree
was challenged in appeal which appeal has been dismissed by the
impugned judgment and order dated 31st July 2019. That, although
the Respondents have filed proceedings in the year 1997 and although
they have obtained decree of eviction in the year 2013, they have been
deprived of the fruits of the decree. That both the lower Courts have
held that the Applicants have unlawfully sub-let the Suit premises and
they are not in possession of the Suit premises. Mr.Thorat would
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
submit that the present Civil Revision Application is yet another
attempt to obstruct the Respondents-landlords from obtaining
possession of the Suit premises and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, do not deserve any equitable reliefs as they have not
approached this Court with clean hands making false and vague
statements for seeking condonation of delay. Mr.Thorat would submit
that the delay is deliberate and intentional and cannot be condoned.
That, the Applicants have no case on merits and the condonation of
delay may not serve any purpose. That, the Applicants have made false
and contradictory submissions and no sufficient cause has been made
out . Mr.Thorat has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and Others 3 and in the
case of Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others 4
in support of his contentions. Learned Counsel submits that, therefore,
the application for condonation of delay be dismissed.
9. Learned Counsel has also distinguished the decisions cited on
behalf of the Applicants submitting that the two decisions are
completely distinguishable on facts.
3 2023 SCC Online SC 92
4 2021 SCC Online SC 1260
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
10. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered the rival
contentions.
11. It is not in dispute that the impugned judgment and order had
been passed on 31st July 2019. That, the application for certified copy
was made on 1st August 2019 and the same was received on 31 st August
2019. The time to file the Civil Revision Application is ninety days
from the date of the order. That means the Civil Revision Application
ought to have been filed by 90th day which ended on 29th November
2019. The Covid-19 exclusion of limitation period as per the Suo Motu
Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 was between 15 th March 2020 till 28 th
February 2022. The period of limitation has expired on 29 th November
2019 which is prior to 15 th March 2020. Therefore, in my view, the suo
motu order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the period of Covid-19
limitation excluded by the said order would not be available to the
Applicants as the period of limitation has expired much prior to the
Covid-19 exclusion period.
12. It has been pleaded that the Applicant no.1 was an old person
and not keeping well and even the other Applicants were senior
citizens, who although were consulting Advocates with respect to the
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
subject matter of the Civil Revision Application but were not able to
take any decision. That, thereafter, the Covid-19 pandemic situation
broke out and the Applicants could not take any steps for filing
appropriate proceedings and it became difficult for them to approach
the Advocates and come to Mumbai as they were informed that the
Courts were also not functioning and that they would get benefit of the
pandemic period for the period of delay. However, no medical
certificates or reports or supporting documents have been annexed or
furnished demonstrating these claims of the Applicants due to which
they were unable to file the revision application in time. The
submissions are bald without any subtantiation without details or
particulars or supporting documents. The submissions, therefore, do
not inspire any confidence.
13. It has also been submitted that the original copies of the
impugned judgment and order got misplaced during the period and
that when they approached the Advocate, they were informed that they
had to give certified copies, and therefore, fresh application was made.
In my view, this explanation also does not inspire any confidence and
has been made in a casual manner without any substantiation as the
Applicants had already handled the litigations at two stages. The Suit
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
for eviction has been filed in the year 1997. Since the judgment and
order dated 1st January 2013 decreed the said Suit and the Applicants
were directed to hand over possession and the Appellate Court also
confirmed the decree for eviction in July 2019, it cannot be believed
that the Applicants were not in a position to take appropriate advice
from Advocates whether or not to file the Civil Revision Application. In
any event, the period of limitation had already expired on 29 th
November 2019. In fact going by the facts, the Applicants can be said
to have been inactive and not acted diligently and rather lackadaisical
and negligent as despite receiving the certified copy on 31 st August
2019, firstly did not avail of their remedies in time and then
purportedly misplaced the certified copy and then tried to justify
preferring fresh application for certified copy on the purported ground
that they were told that certified copy was required, as if they were not
aware that certified copy was required for filing the civil revision
application.
14. The reasons proffered by the Applicants are hardly plausible. I
agree with the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for
the Respondents that despite having filed proceedings in the year 1997
and having obtained the decree of eviction in the year 2013, the
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
Respondents are being deprived of the fruits of their decree,
considering that both the lower Courts have held that the Applicants
had unlawfully sublet the Suit premises and they were not possessed of
the Suit premises. The delay is of a long duration of 2 years and 227
days, which is nothing short of being described as inordinate and no
sufficient or reasonable cause has been made out explaining this delay.
Condoning the delay would therefore seriously prejudice the
Respondents. There is no sufficient cause made out in explaining the
delay caused in filing the civil revision application. Moreover there
are concurrent findings on merits by two Courts. The Applicants had
parted with possession of the Suit premises without the consent of the
landlord and also acquired alternate premises. These findings of the
Trial Court have been arrived at after considering the evidence on
record which has been upheld by the Appellate Court. The Suit for
eviction was decreed by the Trial Court on 1 st January 2013 which has
been upheld by the Appellate Court on 31st July 2019. In my view,
considering the findings on merits by the two Courts, it cannot be said
that the claim of the Applicants is meritorious.
15. The decision in the case of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and
Others (supra), and State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. M/s. Satish
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
Chand Shivhare and Brothers (supra) relied upon by Mr.Surel Shah
would not assist the case of the Applicants.
16. In the case of Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and Others
(supra), paragraph 28 thereof clearly records that the applicant must
display bona fides, should not have been negligent, and the delay
occasioned should not be such that condoning it would seriously
prejudice the other party. As noted above, the Applicants have been
negligent, because of which, the delay has occasioned. Though the
certified copies of the judgment dated 31 st July, 2019 were obtained on
14th August 2019, the Applicants did not prefer to challenge the same
within the prescribed period of limitation. The reason of outbreak of
Covid-19 pandemic cannot be accepted as the impugned judgment and
order is of July 2019 which is much prior to the outbreak of the Covid-
19 pandemic. Also the reason that the delay was because of the old
age of the Applicants or the Applicant no.1 and his age related health
issues cannot be believed as no document in support thereof has been
produced to show that the Applicant no.1 or any of the Applicants were
suffering from any illness which prevented them from availing of their
remedies in time. The Applicants have given vague and flimsy reasons
for the delay caused which do not constitute sufficient cause. Having noted
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
as above, in my view, condoning the delay would seriously prejudice
the Respondents. Therefore, the said case would not assist the case of
the Applicants.
17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others vs. M/s. Satish
Chand Shivhare and Brothers (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
in paragraph 22 observed that when consideration of an appeal on
merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on a
technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards
consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards
sufficient cause to condone the delay and a liberal approach must be
adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. That liberal
approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the
cause for delay shown is flimsy. The Court should not waive limitation
for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a
tardy and lackadaisical manner of functioning. In the facts of the
present case, as observed, there does not appear to be any merit in the
claim of the Applicants in the face of the two concurrent decisions
based on evidence. Moreover, it must be remembered that this is a
revision application and the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was an appeal. In an appeal the evidence can be re-appreciated
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
whereas in a revision application unless there is illegality or failure to
exercise jurisdiction or an exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity, the Courts cannot exercise revisional powers. In
the case at hand, two Courts have found on the basis of evidence that
the Applicants had unlawfully sublet the Suit premises and they were
not in possession of the Suit premises. Therefore, there would be no
question of the claim of the Applicants being meritorious. Infact, as
noted above, no plausible cause for delay is shown. The cause for
delay is flimsy. The conduct of the Applicants is not only negligent but
also tardy and lackadaisical and therefore going by the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
vs. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers (supra) this Court cannot
waive the limitation by condoning the said inordinate delay caused by
tardy, lackadaisical and negligent manner of functioning of the
Applicants. The said decision, therefore, does not lend any assistance
to the case of the Applicants.
18. I agree with Mr.Thorat on his reliance upon the decision in the
case of Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others
(supra). Paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 thereof are relevant and
usefully quoted as under :
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
"17. In the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra),
it is observed and held as under:-
"In construing s. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two
important considerations. The first consideration is
that the expiration of the period of limitation
prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right
in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as
binding between the parties. In other words, when
the period of limitation prescribed has expired the
decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law
of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge,
and this legal right which has accrued to the decree--
holder by lapse of time should not be light -
heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which
cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for
excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the
Court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This
discretion has been deliberately conferred on the
Court in order that judicial power and discretion in
that behalf should be exercised to advance
substantial justice. As has been observed by the
Madras High Court in Krishna v. Chattappan, (1890)
J.L.R. 13 Mad. 269, "s. 5 gives the Court a discretion
which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in
the way in which judicial power and discretion
ought to be exercised upon principles which are well
understood; the words 'sufficient cause' receiving a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial
justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of
bona fide is imputable to the appellant."
18. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra), while
refusing to condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed
that in the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even
appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay,
the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further
observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour
when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no
power to extend the period of limitation on equitable
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
grounds. It is further observed that while exercising
discretion for condoning the delay, the court has to
exercise discretion judiciously.
19. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed as under: -
"The laws of limitation are founded on public policy.
Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
"statutes of peace". An unlimited and perpetual
threat of limitation creates insecurity and
uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for
public order. The principle is based on the maxim
"interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", that is, the
interest of the State requires that there should be
end to litigation but at the same time laws of
limitation are a means to ensure private justice
suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence
and preventing oppression. The object for fixing
time limit for litigation is based on public policy
fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of
general welfare. They are meant to see that the
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their
legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his
Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the
assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy."
20. In the case of Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and
held by this Court that the discretion to condone the delay
has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and
circumstances of each case. It is further observed that the
expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally
interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is
attributed to the party. It is further observed that even
though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by
statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted
with negligence, lack of bona fides or there is inaction
then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning
the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that
each application for condonation of delay has to be
decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
is further observed that if courts start condoning delay
where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing
conditions then that would amount to violation of
statutory principles and showing utter disregard to
legislature.
21. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is
observed by this Court that the court cannot enquire into
belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay
defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and
"do not slumber over their rights".
19. Mr.Thorat has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram and Others (supra)
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the case of a delay
of 254 days has in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 reiterated that where
in a case a party is found to be negligent or for want of bona-fide on his
part in the facts and circumstances of the case or found to have not
acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground
to condone the delay and that no Court could be justified in condoning
such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. That
the application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to condonation of delay.
That in case there is no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the Court in time, condoning the delay without justification,
putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing
utter disregard to the legislature. The said paragraphs are usefully
quoted as under :
"11. We do not have a case at hand where the appellant
is not capable of purchasing the court fee. He did pay the
court fee ultimately, though belatedly. But then, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned for
the delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid reason for
condonation of the delay, since the appellant could have filed
the appeal deficient in court fee under the provisions of law,
referred above. Therefore, we find that the High Court was
right in dismissing Section 5 application of the appellant as
insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for
condonation of delay, under the facts and circumstance of the
case. It would have been entirely a different matter had the
appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and
thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees.
This has evidently not been done.
12. This Court, while emphasizing the scope of Section
5 of the Limitation Act, in the case of Mahant Bikram Dass
Chela versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab,
Chandigarh [(1977) 4 SCC 69] has held:
"21. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master
and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow
compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around
Section 5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to
take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of
time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about
his rights must explain every day's delay. These and similar
considerations which influence the decision of Section 5
applications are out of place in cases where the appeal
itself is preferred within the period of limitation but there
is an irregularity in presenting it. Thus, in the instant case,
there was no occasion to invoke the provisions of Section
5, Limitation Act, or of Rule 4, Chapter I of the High Court
Rules. If the Division Bench were aware that Rule 3 of
Chapter 2-C is directory, it would have treated the appeal
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
as having been filed within the period of limitation,
rendering it inapposite to consider whether the delay
caused in filing the appeal could be condoned."
13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj versus Special
Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting
an application for condonation of delay for lack of sufficient
cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect
that where a case has been presented in the court beyond
limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to
what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate
and enough reason which prevented him to approach the
court within limitation. In case a party is found to be
negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts
and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted
diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified
ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in
condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any
condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided
only within the parameters laid down by this Court in
regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no
sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court
on time condoning the delay without any justification,
putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an
order in violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the
delay condonation application of the present appellant.
20. In view of the above discussion, there being no sufficient cause
made out in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Interim
Application is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
IA-20333-2022-CRA(ST)-18269-2022.doc
21. The Civil Revision Application accordingly cannot be entertained
and to accordingly stand disposed.
22. Mr.Sachin Gite, learned Counsel for the Applicants, seeks stay of
the order. Mr.Kekane, learned Counsel for the Respondents no.1, 4 and
5A to 5C, opposes the request. Having heard the learned Counsel, the
request for stay is rejected.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
