Court's Pendency Can't Justify Delay In Filing Review: Bombay High Court Declines To Condone 645-Day Delay

In an interesting ruling, the Bombay High Court on Monday (February 2) held that a court taking two decades to decide a matter cannot be a ground for a party to challenge the court's order after a delay of nearly two years.

Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain therefore, refused to condone a delay of 645 days as prayed by one Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, who sought to review an order passed in a First Appeal on February 6, 2024.

The First Appeal challenged a lower court's order in a dispute pertaining to the appointment of Trustee in a Temple, which mandated that a 'Sanatani Hindu' must be appointed as a Trustee.

Justice Jain, in the instant interim application seeking to file a review petition after a delay of 645 days to challenge the February 6, 2024 order, noted the argument by the applicants that the change report (of the Trust) pertained to 2--4 and that the first appeal in the said case was decided in 2024, which is after 2 decades. The judge noted the argument that two decades, when compared with the delay of 645 days is very short.

Justice Jain made it clear that such an argument cannot be accepted.

"The issue is not how much time the Appellate Authority or the Court took to decide the matter, but the issue for condoning the delay has to be examined whether for the period of delay, there was sufficient cause. This would arise only after the order is passed. Therefore, pendency of the matters before the Authorities and the Court cannot be a ground to explain the delay caused after passing the order against which review has to be filed. The delay post expiry of limitation period cannot be justified by attributing time taken by the Court in disposing the appeal. This cause is also not stated in the application but argued across the bar," Justice Jain held.

The judge further rejected the argument of the applicants attributing the 645 days delay to their 'efforts' to identify a 'expert' counsel to defend their case before the High Court as they had to travel to Mumbai all the way from Nashik.

"The reason given is that the applicants were constrained to engage a counsel who is an expert in trust matters and, therefore, considerable time was consumed in identifying such a counsel. However, the application (for condonation of delay) does not state as to when the applicants were able to identify an expert counsel on the issue of trust. No details have been furnished except bald statement. In my view, this cannot be a ground which would constitute 'sufficient cause.' In any case, there is no supporting document in support of this particular cause. This is a general and vague statement made to explain the delay of 645 days," Justice Jain observed.

Further, the bench dismissed the argument that because of summer vacation, there was a delay. The judge noted that the applicants failed to bring anything on record to show exactly what prevented them from filing the review petition as they spent two summer vacations (after February 2024).

"Nothing has been annexed to the interim application except making a bald statement. Between February 2024 and filing of review there were two summer vacations and out of that which one came in their way to prevent them from filing the review is not mentioned. Even in vacation if urgency is shown filing permission is granted. Therefore even this reason cannot be accepted," the judge observed.

The judge also opined that for condoning the delay, what is to be examined is “sufficient cause” and not the importance of question of law, as argued by the applicants.

With these observations, the judge dismissed the interim application seeking to condone the 645 days delay.

Appearance:

Advocates Tushad Kakalia, Anjali Sharma and Suraj Agarwal instructed by Crawford Bayley appeared for the Applicants.

Advocate Kashish Singhi represented the Respondents.

Case Title: Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala vs Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar (Interim Application 892 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Order