Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who were not parties to the original suit, had filed a Second Appeal (No. 21/2018) which was dismissed as not maintainable by the Bombay High Court on 31st October 2018. Thereafter, they approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court, by order dated 22nd February 2019, disposed of the SLP as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the High Court, relying on the decision in Banarasi v. Ramphal. The applicants then filed a review application along with an application for condonation of delay of 89 days (Civil Application No. 3669/2019). The delay was calculated from the date of the original order (31.10.2018) to the date of filing the review (29.01.2019). The applicants contended that the delay was caused because they were pursuing the SLP and believed that limitation would not run during that period. The respondents opposed the condonation, arguing that the applicants had not shown sufficient cause. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the mere pendency of an SLP does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as the limitation for filing a review runs from the date of the decree or order sought to be reviewed. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a review does not extend the period of limitation. The court found that the applicants had not explained the delay of 89 days satisfactorily and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the review application was also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - Applicants sought condonation of 89 days delay in filing review petition, claiming they were pursuing SLP before Supreme Court - Held that mere pendency of SLP does not constitute sufficient cause for delay, as limitation for review runs from date of decree or order sought to be reviewed, and liberty granted by Supreme Court does not extend limitation period (Paras 1-6). B) Civil Procedure Code - Review - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Maintainability - Second Appeal filed by non-parties to suit was held not maintainable - Applicants sought review relying on Banarasi v. Ramphal - Court noted that the review application itself was barred by limitation and delay not condoned, hence review not considered on merits (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 89 days in filing the review petition should be condoned when the applicants claim they were pursuing remedy before the Supreme Court under the belief that limitation would not run.
Final Decision
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the review application is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- limitation for review petition
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
- sufficient cause
- delay of 89 days
- liberty granted by Supreme Court does not extend limitation
