Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and others filed a Review Petition (Stamp) No. 19950 of 2022 seeking review of a judgment dated 15 November 2017 in Writ Petition No. 11997 of 2016. The review petition was filed with a delay of 1679 days (4 years and 7 months). The State filed Interim Application No. 3426 of 2023 seeking condonation of this delay. The State's application cited that the judgment relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was later overruled by a Full Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The State also referred to a government notification dated 23 June 2020 directing review petitions in such cases, and sought exclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022) based on Supreme Court orders. The original petitioners opposed condonation, arguing no sufficient cause was shown and that the limitation period had expired long before the pandemic. The Court, after hearing arguments, found that the State failed to explain the delay between 15 December 2017 and 15 March 2020. Relying on Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, the Court held that the COVID-19 limitation extension orders benefit only those whose limitation expired during the pandemic period, not those whose limitation had already expired. The Court also noted that the ground of subsequent overruling of a precedent is not a valid ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the review petition, along with the interim applications for intervention.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - The State sought condonation of 1679 days delay in filing review petition, citing overruling of a precedent and COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that no sufficient cause was shown; the limitation period expired in 2017, before the pandemic, and the State failed to explain the delay from 2017 to 2020. The benefit of Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation extension orders was not available as the limitation had already expired. (Paras 13-15) B) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Grounds - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - The State sought review based on subsequent overruling of a decision. The Court noted that such a ground does not constitute a valid ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. (Para 12) C) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - State as Applicant - The Court held that even adopting a liberal approach for the State, no sufficient cause was shown for the inordinate delay. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate delay of 1679 days in filing the review petition by the State Government should be condoned.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed Interim Application No. 3426 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay, and consequently dismissed Review Petition (ST) No. 19950 of 2022 and all pending interim applications.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation period
- COVID-19 extension orders
- Review petition
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
