Facts: The applicants, appellants in First Appeal No. 1106 of 2018, sought condonation of a 645-day delay in filing a review petition to review an order dated 6 February 2024, which disposed of their First Appeal. The applicants cited difficulties in finding expert counsel for trust matters, the intervening summer vacation, a family wedding, and attempts to settle the dispute amicably as reasons for the delay.
Procedural Posture: This is an interim application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, seeking condonation of delay in filing a review petition. The review petition was filed against the order disposing of First Appeal No. 1106 of 2018.
Issue: Did the applicants demonstrate "sufficient cause" to warrant condonation of a 645-day delay in filing their review petition, considering the reasons provided, including difficulties in finding expert counsel, intervening vacation periods, a family wedding, and attempts at amicable settlement?
Holding: No, the court held that the reasons provided by the applicants did not constitute "sufficient cause" to justify the condonation of the 645-day delay. The interim application was dismissed, and consequently, the review petition was also disposed of.
Reasoning: The court found the reasons provided by the applicants to be vague, unsubstantiated, and self-contradictory. The court noted that the applicants failed to provide specific details regarding when they were able to identify expert counsel, how the summer vacation and wedding specifically impeded the filing of the review, and that attempts to settle the matter were initiated well after the limitation period had expired. The court emphasized that the focus should be on whether there was sufficient cause for the delay itself, not on the importance of the legal questions involved. The court also cited the Supreme Court case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., emphasizing the importance of "sufficient cause" in limitation matters. The court stated, "In my view, the cause shown in the present application does not constitute 'sufficient cause' but is only an attempt which would constitute 'excuses' and that too without any supporting thereof."