SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES TRIAL COURT’S DECISION REGARDING THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION

INTRODUCTION

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta and passed an Order dated 08.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) No. 4034 Of 2023) in Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. And Others and held that the Trial Court’s approach to the Application filed at the behest of a stranger who was not a party to a proceeding was illegal and thereby quashed the Order of the Trial Court.

FACTS

i) The present Suit revolves around a piece of land located in Sonkhar Village, within the Taluka and District of Thane, Maharashtra (“Suit Land”). There are conflicting assertions regarding the ownership of this land.

ii) In 1986 and 1988, the Government of Maharashtra, represented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Metro Centre, Thane, issued Awards No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, acquiring the aforementioned land for a public purpose. Subsequently, these lands were entrusted to the City Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO), for development and execution.

iii) In 2002, Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002 (referred to as the “subject Suit”) was filed by the Plaintiff, Pravin Jamndas Thakkar (Kanani), who has since passed away in the year 2005 and is now represented by his legal heirs, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Suit was filed in the Trial Court against multiple parties including the Government of Maharashtra (Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 4 herein), the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thane (Defendant No. 2/Respondent No. 5 herein), Vijay Laxman Bhawe (Defendant No.3) (also deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein), the Union of India (Defendant No. 4/ Respondent No. 6 herein), and the City Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra (CIDCO) (Defendant No. 5/ Respondent No. 7 herein). The purpose of the Suit was to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the Suit Land was illegal, null, and void. Alternatively, if the Court upholds the validity of the acquisition, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that they are entitled to a 12½ % Gaonthan Extension Scheme in lieu of the acquired lands, as per CIDCO’s Gaonthan Extension Scheme.

iv) The legal heirs of the original Plaintiff, represented by their Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Arunkumar Jayantilal Mucchalla, submitted an Application seeking Condonation of Delay for the inclusion of the Plaintiff’s legal heirs in the subject Suit. Additionally, they filed another Application to officially include the legal heirs of the Plaintiff in the ongoing proceedings.

v) The Trial Court vide Order dated 28.11.2006 granted approval for both the Condonation of Delay Application and the Application to include the legal heirs of the Plaintiff in the Suit. However, on 03.11.2011, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit due to want of prosecution.

vi) On 07.11.2019, Respondents No. 2 and 3, who are the legal heirs of the Plaintiff, submitted an Application, namely Civil Application (MCA) No. 1082 of 2019 in the Suit, requesting condonation of an 8-year and 4-day delay in filing an Application for the restoration of the Suit. This Application is currently awaiting adjudication.

vii) On 12.10.2021, while the aforementioned Application by the legal heirs of the Plaintiff was still under consideration, Respondent No. 1, a private limited company claiming to be the “Assignee” from the legal heirs of the Plaintiff, filed an Application, namely Civil Application (MCA) No. 1473 of 2021 in the subject Suit. This Application sought condonation of a delay of 9 years and 11 months in filing for the restoration of the subject Suit.

viii) According to Respondent No. 1, they had purportedly entered into an Agreement for Sale on 08.12.2009, with the legal heirs of the Plaintiff (Respondents No. 2 and 3). This Agreement involved the acquisition of benefits from the Suit Land. As part of the Agreement, Respondent No. 1 claimed to have paid a partial consideration of Rs. 1.51 crore to Respondents No. 2 and 3. Additionally, an irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed on 08.12.2009, appointing Respondent No. 1 as the constituted Attorney empowered to undertake all necessary actions to execute the Agreement for Sale.

ix) On 04.05.2022, the Trial Court granted approval for the Restoration Application, being MCA No. 1473 of 2021, submitted by Respondent No. 1. However, this approval was contingent upon the payment of costs amounting to Rs. 15,000. Additionally, the Court condoned the substantial delay of 9 years and 11 months associated with the Restoration Application.

x) Aggrieved by the Order of the Trial Court dated 04.05.2022, the Appellants filed Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 2022 before the High Court of Bombay.

xi) The High Court, through its Order, rejected the Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 2022 brought forth by the Appellants. It affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and solely augmented the costs imposed from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

xii) Aggrieved by the Order of the High Court, the Appellants filed Civil Appeal No. Of 2024 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) No. 4034 Of 2023) before the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS

The Apex Court vide Order dated 08.05.2024, made the following observations:

1) The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court approached the Application filed at the behest of Respondent No. 1 was totally unsustainable in law. The claim of the Respondent No. 1 was on an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 08.12.2009. It was admitted that Respondent No. 1 had never been impeded in the Suit. Hence, the Application filed at the behest of a stranger, who is not a party to a proceeding is totally illegal. If the said approach as adopted by the Trial Court was approved any person would be permitted to move an Application for condonation of delay in filing an Application for restoration of the suit even if the person is not a party to the proceeding.

2) Furthermore, an Application requesting condonation of delay in submitting an Application for the restoration of the subject Suit, at the request of the legal heirs of the original Plaintiff, has been pending since 07.11.2019.

3) Further the Apex Court observed that it’s indeed perplexing why the Trial Court opted to entertain the Application submitted by Respondent No. 1, two years after the initial Application filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3. The Trial Court could have appropriately adjudicated the Application put forth by Respondents No. 2 and 3 based on its own merits and in compliance with the law. It appears rather inexplicable why the Court chose to leave the Application filed by the legal heirs of the original Plaintiff in 2019 pending, while expeditiously addressing the subsequent Application submitted by Respondent No. 1 in October 2021 within a mere six-month period.

4) That despite the Appellants’ arguments before the High Court, asserting that Respondent No. 1 was entirely unrelated and that the reasons cited for condoning the delay did not amount to “sufficient cause,” and despite referencing judgments of the Apex Court to support why the Application should not have been granted by the Trial Court, the High Court evidently disregarded these points.

ORDER

The Supreme Court considering the circumstances and evidence held that it’s not imperative to delve deeply into whether the rationale provided by the Trial Court and the High Court concerning whether Respondent No. 1 had established a “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay is accurate or not. However, it was evident that the reasoning provided by both Courts for condoning such a prolonged delay does not meet the criteria of “sufficient cause” as elucidated by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. The Supreme Court further held that both the Trial Court’s and the High Court’s Orders are legally untenable. Consequently, the Appeal was upheld. The judgment dated 14.12.2022, rendered by the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 2022, and the Order dated 04.05.2022, issued by the Trial Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 1473 of 2021, were annulled and overturned. However, the Application filed by Respondents No.2 and 3 being MCA No. 1082 of 2019 would be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law.

 

Kartik Khandekar

Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer