Bombay High Court
SHANI JANYA MHATRE AND ORS.versusM/S. JASA LUMBAJI CO. , THROUGH ITS PARTNER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Condonation of a 47‑year delay was not warranted and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking condonation of a 47‑year delay in filing an appeal against a 1959 order, arguing that earlier directions under the relevant Act required the authorities to consider their application. The Court noted that the 1959 order had been entered in the revenue record, negating any claim of ignorance by the petitioners. It held that the petitioners must demonstrate compelling reasons for such an extraordinary delay, which they failed to do. The Court further observed that merely imperfect wording of the authorities' orders does not justify invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to reopen a matter concluded decades earlier. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether condonation of a 47‑year delay in filing an appeal can be granted.
- Whether the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to reopen proceedings concluded in 1959.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- writ petition
- extraordinary jurisdiction
- revenue record
- appeal
- limitation
Judgment
24-wp-8544-2018.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8544 OF 2018
SHABNOOR Shanu Janya Mhatre & Ors. … Petitioners
AYUB
PATHAN V/s.
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
M/s Jasa Lumbaji Co.,
PATHAN
Date: 2026.08.17 Through Its Partner … Respondent
15:33:40 +0530
Mr. Chintan Shah a/w Rohan Chaughule, for the
Ptitioners.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 17, 2026
P.C.:
1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed
by the Authorities below, whereby the petitioners’ application
seeking condonation of delay of 47 years in filing the appeal
against the order passed in the year 1959 came to be rejected. The
petitioners have also challenged the said adverse order passed in
the year 1959. It is submitted that in the earlier round of litigation,
certain directions were issued to the Authorities under the Act for
considering the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay.
2. However, the fact remains that the order passed in the year
1959 was given effect to in the revenue record. Therefore, the
petitioners cannot claim that they were unaware of the existence
of the said order since 1959. The petitioners were, therefore,
required to show sufficient and compelling reasons for seeking
condonation of such a long delay of 47 years.
1
24-wp-8544-2018.doc
3. Though the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act
may not have been happily worded, that by itself would not justify
exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for
reopening proceedings which stood concluded in the year 1959.
No sufficient ground is made out for interference.
4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
2
Checking your session…