SANKLECHA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTDversusNITIN MADHUKAR SHEWALE

2026:BHC-AS:38067
             k                                1/3                     5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7868 OF 2025
                                             IN
                            SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.8825 OF 2025

             Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd.                            ....Applicant
             IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
             Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd.                            ....Appellant
                   V/S
             Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors.                                ....Respondents
                                            _________

             Mr. Abhishek Pungaliya for the Appellant/Applicant.
             Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                          __________

                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATE : 17 SEPTEMBER 2026.
             P.C.:

             1.       The Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of delay of
             63 days in filing the Second Appeal. Though the Application computes
             the delay as 63 days, the Registry has computed the delay as 1 year and
             63 days in filing the Appeal.


             2.       It appears that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was passed on 7
             November 2023. The Appellant preferred Application for review of the
             order of the Appellate Tribunal which came to be partly allowed by order
             dated 28 November 2024 and the Appellant has secured partial relief in
             the Review Petition. Thus, the original order of the Appellate Tribunal
             dated 7 November 2023 has been modified substantially by review order
             dated 28 November 2024. In my view therefore, the period during which
             katkam                                 Page No. 1 of 3
k                                      2/3                          5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc




the Appellant was prosecuting review application deserves to be
excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing the present
Second Appeal. When computed from 28 November 2024 the delay in
filing the present Appeal is only of 63 days.


3.       I have gone through the averments made in the Application. In
paragraph 5 of the Interim Application the Appellant has pleaded thus:

         “5. If the period of 371 days (23.11.23 to 28.11.24) for which the Review
         Application was pending, is excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act/
         considered as constituting a sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5
         of the Limitation Act which ought to be taken into account while exercising
         the discretion to extend the period for filing a Second Appeal, then the above
         captioned Second Appeal is being filed 57 days beyond the 60 days period
         prescribed by section 58 of the of the Real Estate (Regulation and
         Development Act) 2016. The Applicants state that the judgment and order
         dated 07.11.2023 was subsequently modified/ altered on 28.11.2024 when
         Review Application No.14 of 2023 came to be partially allowed in a manner
         that effectively allowed grounds (a) to (i) of the Review Application No.14 of
         2023. The relevant portion of the operative part of the judgment and order
         dated 28.11.2024 reads as, "The direction to the applicant promoter in para no.
         15(b) (ii) of the judgment dated 7 th November 2023, stands deleted." The said
         Review Application No.14/2023 alongwith the judgment am order dated
         28.11.2024 passed in Review Application No.14/2023 is annexed hereto and
         marked as Annexure C (colly.). An application for review, if successful, to
         however limited extent, puts an end to the original judgment and order, at any
         rate for the purpose of filing any appeal upon it. If there is any appeal at all, it
         must be based upon the judgment and order of the Court in question in its
         final form, i.e., as modified by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed
         in the said review application. In support of the said contention, the
         Applicants rely on AIR 1931 Cal 323. Since the impugned judgment and order
         dated 07.11.2023 stood modified by virtue of the judgment and order dated
         28.11.2024 passed in Review Application No. 14/ 2023, the impugned judgment
         and order achieved its final form only on 28.11.2024 when it stood modified by
         the Review Application order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Even
         otherwise, after the disposal of the said Review Application, the Appellants did
         not file the above captioned Second Appeal before 10.03.2025 on account of
         the fact that Mr. Sagar Avhad, the Legal Advisor of the Appellant No.1, who is
         in charge of handling all litigation-related matters of Respondent No.1 and
         responsible for coordinating with the Respondent No.1's Advocates, had
         undergone a hip replacement surgery in 2024 which had cause severe after

katkam                                        Page No. 2 of 3
                         k                                     3/3                           5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc




                                  effects which severely impaired his ability to discharge his functions, resulting
                                  in delay in the filing of the Second Appeal This circumstance by itself
                                  constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation
                                  Act as it adequately explains why the above captioned Second Appeal could
                                  not be filed before 10.03.2025.”


                         4.       Considering the above justification pleaded, in my view, delay of
                         63 days in filing the Second Appeal deserves to be condoned.


                         5.       I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:


                                  i)     Delay in filing the Second Appeal is condoned.


                         6.       Interim Application is allowed and disposed of.



                                                                                        (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                        Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2026 11:06:03