Bombay High Court
SD SVP NAGAR REDEVELOPMENT PVT.LTD.versusMAHENDRA LIHALA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The Court condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, subject to payment of costs.
Summary
The applicant, SD SVP Nagar Redevelopment Pvt Ltd, sought condonation of a 31‑day delay in filing a second appeal against an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that stayed a prior order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the late receipt of the reasoned order and internal restructuring, while the respondent contended the delay was negligent and not bonafide, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The Court examined whether the reasons for delay were sufficient and emphasized the principle that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. Finding no evidence of deliberate inaction or malafide intent, the Court held that the delay was not inordinate and could be condoned. Consequently, the application was allowed, with the applicant ordered to pay Rs. 15,000 costs to the respondent and the appeal to be registered for admission.
Issues considered
- Whether the 31‑day delay in filing the second appeal can be condoned under civil procedure principles.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- civil procedure
- appellate jurisdiction
- costs
- substantive justice
- Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
- stay order
Judgment
17-IA-5245-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5245 OF 2026
IN
SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO. 7600 OF 2026
SD SVP Nagar Redevelopment Pvt Ltd ..Applicant
Versus
Mahendra Lihala …Respondent
Mr. Amanjhot Anand, with Abir P (through VC), Kartik Joshi, i/b
Wadia Ghandy & Co, for the Applicant.
Ms. Ritika Agarwal, with Yaminee Verma, with Yash Chandra Prakash,
i/b M/s ACF Legal, for the Respondent.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 22nd JULY 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This application is preferred to condone the delay of 31 days in
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL filing the Second Appeal against an order dated 21st August, 2025
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.07.24
18:21:41 +0530
passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in
Miscellaneous Application No. 628/2025 and the connected matters.
3. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal has stayed the
execution, operation and effect of the order dated 18th February, 2025
passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, till the
final disposal of the appeal.
ARS 1/4
17-IA-5245-2026.DOC
4. In the application it is averred that, the delay occurred as on 21st
August, 2025 only the operative order was pronounced and on 16th
September, 2025 the applicant’s legal representative came across the
reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. On that premise, the period of
limitation is reckoned from 16th September, 2025.
5. It is further averred that, time was consumed in consultation and
on account of re-structuring of the applicant’s group, which was
underway since the year 2021, and Ms. Shraddha Birari was the only
officer posted in the legal team of the applicant post the restructuring.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent resisted the prayer for
condonation of delay. It was submitted that, the reasons ascribed in the
application are not bonafide. It was a case of intentional delay
bordering on negligence on the part of applicant. Reliance was placed
on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & anr. Vs.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,1 wherein it was enunciated that, in
case a party is found to be negligent, or lacks in bonafide or found to
have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in
condoning an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.
7. In the case at hand, even if the period of delay is computed from
22nd August 2025; the next day of the impugned order, the delay
cannot be said to be inordinate.
1 2013 (14) SCC 81.
ARS 2/4
17-IA-5245-2026.DOC
8. It is true, it is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the
cause ascribed for the delay that is of decisive significance. In the case
at hand, in Paragraph No. 10 to 12 of the application the applicant has
sought to ascribe reasons for the delay.
9. It is trite, an application for condonation of delay ought to receive
a liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of substantive justice.
This overarching principle stems from the proposition that, the
procedure which is a handmaid of justice shall not be allowed to score a
march over substantive justice; which, in turn, is promoted by the
determination of the matter on merits rather than on technicalities.
10. On the aforesaid touchstone, the reasons ascribed by the
applicant for the delay cannot be said to be unsustainable. The material
on record does not indicate that, there was deliberate inaction or
negligence on the part of the applicant. Nor the application is afflicted
with malafide. Thus, to advance the cause of substantive justice, this
Court is inclined to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal.
11. The delay and inconvenience caused to the respondent can be
taken care of by imposing costs.
12. The application thus stands allowed.
13. The delay in preferring the Appeal stands condoned, subject to
payment of the costs of Rs. 15,000/- by the applicant to the
respondents, within a period of two weeks from today.
ARS 3/4
17-IA-5245-2026.DOC
14. Upon payment of costs, the Second Appeal be registered and
listed before the Court for admission on 12th August 2026.
15. To be listed alongwith Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 7604 of 2026,
Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 7613 of 2026 and Second Appeal (Stamp)
No. 5662 of 2026.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 4/4
Checking your session…