The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 645-day delay in filing a review petition, holding that the reasons offered by the applicants did not constitute “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act, 1963. Justice Jitendra Jain rejected the plea, observing that the grounds cited were vague, unsupported by evidence, and amounted to mere excuses.
The application arose from a review petition filed against a February 6, 2024 order by which a first appeal relating to a trust dispute was disposed of. The applicants, who were appellants in the first appeal, admitted that the review petition ought to have been filed within 30 days under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, but was instead filed on December 18, 2025, resulting in a delay of 645 days.
To explain the delay, the applicants contended that the impugned judgment involved complex questions of law under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, requiring consultation with specialised counsel, and time was also consumed due to court vacations, a family wedding, and efforts to amicably resolve the dispute. They further argued that since the underlying dispute related to a change report of 2004 and the appeal itself was decided after nearly two decades, the delay in filing the review petition was relatively insignificant.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that none of the reasons advanced were supported by particulars or documents. The claim of searching for specialised counsel was found to be a bald assertion, with no disclosure of when such counsel was identified. The explanation based on summer vacations and personal events was also rejected, with the Court noting that even during vacations, urgent matters can be filed with permission. As regards settlement talks, the Court pointed out that the first attempt at correspondence was made more than a year after the impugned order and well beyond the limitation period.
The Court further held that the time taken by courts or authorities to decide a matter cannot be invoked to justify delay after an order has been passed. It also rejected the argument that an important question of law warranted condonation, observing that if the issue were truly significant, the applicants ought to have acted with greater urgency.
Emphasising that statutory limitation periods reflect legislative intent, the Court held that the 30-day period prescribed for filing review petitions cannot be bypassed merely by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Concluding that the explanation offered did not meet the threshold of “sufficient cause,” the Court dismissed the interim application, resulting in the review petition itself being disposed of.
Appearances
Mr. Tushad Kakalia a/w Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr. Suraj Agarwal i/by Crawford Bayley the Applicants/original petitioners.
Ms. Kashish Singhi for respondent no.2.
