'Mere Imposition Of Costs Cannot Justify Condonation Of Inordinate Delay Without Sufficient Cause': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that in the absence of a reasonable and plausible explanation, inordinate delay in filing a restoration application cannot be condoned merely by imposing costs, and doing so would amount to disregarding accrued rights of the opposite party.Justice Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi was hearing a civil revision application filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the District Judge, which had condoned a delay of 2325 days and allowed restoration of a civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The applicants (original defendants) contended that the non-applicants have not filed on record any reason for delay, and other than non-applicant No.1, there are three other non-applicants, who knew about the pendency of the proceedings, but they did not take any efforts to contact the lawyer.The Court noted that no reason has been given as to why the other non-applicants did not take any efforts to contact the lawyer; the only reason given is that the applicant No.1 was the only person who was looking after the legal proceedings, which is not a sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 2325 days. The Court observed that in the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the same cannot be condoned merely for the asking. The explanation has to be reasonable or plausible to enable the Court to exercise judicial discretion. “As regards the directions to pay the costs is concerned, it is already noted that the costs can be ordered subject to there being any reasonable ground to condone the delay. By imposing of costs, all the requirements of furnishing sufficient cause cannot be dispensed with. Costs cannot be substituted for [the] absence of reasons to condone the delay,” the court observed.The Court emphasised that the rights accrued in favour of the petitioner in view of the decree are required to be taken into consideration: “… in [the] absence of any reason which the non-applicants have furnished in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the restoration application could not have been condoned.”Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision application, quashed the impugned order condoning the delay, and dismissed the restoration application filed by the non-applicants.Case Title: Laxman Motiram Barai v. Hafiza Sheikh & Ors. [Civil Revision Application No. 116 of 2024]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Mere Imposition Of Costs Cannot Justify Condonation Of Inordinate Delay Without Sufficient Cause': Bombay High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags