Bombay High Court

KBK CHEM ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.versusTIGER INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS

Decided: 6 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the delay in filing the civil revision application was not inordinate and, in the interest of substantive justice, should be condoned.

Summary

KBK Chem Engineering Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30 June 2022 that rejected its application to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The High Court allowed the petition to be converted into a civil revision application (CRA/337/2025). The applicant then filed Interim Application IA/11416/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. The respondents opposed the condonation. The Court examined the delay, found it not inordinate, and, considering the reasons and the need to advance substantive justice, exercised its discretion to condone the delay. Consequently, the interim application was allowed and the delay condoned, with further notice issues to be addressed on a later date.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the civil revision application can be condoned
Whether the order dated 30 June 2022 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is revisable

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11

Subjects

condonation of delay
civil revision
Order VII Rule 11
substantive justice
laches
high court procedure

Judgment

                                                                          4-IA11416-2025.DOC

                                                                                     Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11416 OF 2025 (Delay)
                                                   IN
                               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2025

                      KBK Chem Engineering Pvt.Ltd.                           ...Applicant
                                          Versus
                      Tiger Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. and anr.              …Respondents
                                                 WITH
SANTOSH                       CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 337 OF 2025
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                         WITH
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7434 OF 2026
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.07
14:52:43 +0530
                      Mr. Behram Kamdin, Senior Advocate, a/w Divisha
                           Hassananandani, Vinay Kate and Gunjan Chaubey, for
                           the Applicant.
                      Mr. Shantanu Parundekar, a/w Hemant Bhand, for Respondent
                           No.1.

                                                       CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                       DATED : 6th OCTOBER, 2026

                      PC:-

                      IA/11416/2025 (Delay)


                      1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.     This is an application for condonation of delay in filing a

                      civil revision application against an order dated 30th June, 2022,

                      whereby an application preferred by the applicant, for the

                      rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11

                      of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected.


                                                      1/3
                                                 4-IA11416-2025.DOC

3.       Initially the applicant had filed writ petition, being

WP/2753/2023, assailing the impugned order. By an order

dated 17th June, 2025, this Court permitted the applicant to

convert the said writ petition into a civil revision application

finding the impugned order revisable.

4.       The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the

prayer for condonation of delay.

5.       This Court has perused the averments in the application.

Some amount of delay and laches is evident but that is bound to

occur in any case where an application for condonation of delay

is filed. Having regard to the period of delay, which cannot be

said to be inordinate, and the reasons ascribed in the

application and also to advance the cause of substantive justice,

this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion and condone the

delay.

6.       Hence, the following order:

                             :ORDER:

(i)      The application stands allowed.

(ii)     The delay in filing the revision application stands

         condoned.




                                  2/3
                                                   4-IA11416-2025.DOC

CRA/337/2025

7.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


8.    An arguable question is raised.


9.    Issue notice to the respondents.


10.   Mr. Parundekar, the learned Counsel, waives notice for

respondent No.1.


11.   Stand over to 3rd November, 2026.


12.   In the meanwhile, there shall be an ad-interim relief in

terms of prayer clause (b).


                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.