The Supreme Court allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the trial court's decision to condone an inordinate delay in filing an application for restoration of a subject suit. The suit concerned disputed land ownership in Maharashtra, initiated in 2002 and subsequently dismissed in 2011. The legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff had filed an application for restoration in 2019, which was pending. However, a private party, claiming to be an assignee of the original plaintiff, filed a similar application in 2021, seeking condonation of further delay. The trial court allowed this application, which was upheld by the High Court.

The Supreme Court criticized the trial court's decision to entertain the application filed by a stranger to the proceedings and highlighted the pending application by the legal heirs, which should have been decided first. The Court emphasized that allowing applications from non-parties would set a dangerous precedent. Additionally, it questioned the trial court's rationale for the delay condonation, finding it inconsistent with established legal principles.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, quashing the restoration application. However, it directed the trial court to independently evaluate the pending application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. No costs were awarded.

Supreme Court Quashes Delay Condonation in Land Ownership Dispute

1. Background: Dispute over land ownership in Sonkhar Village, Maharashtra. Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2002 was initiated, challenging the land acquisition by the Government of Maharashtra. The suit was dismissed in 2011 for want of prosecution.

2. Key Events: Various applications for restoration were filed, including by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff. However, a private party, claiming to be an assignee, filed a similar application seeking delay condonation.

3. Trial Court Decision: Despite a pending application from the legal heirs, the trial court entertained the application from the private party and allowed delay condonation.

4. High Court Upholds Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

5. Supreme Court's Observations:

   • Criticized the trial court's decision to entertain an application from a non-party, highlighting the pending application from the legal heirs.
   • Questioned the rationale for delay condonation, finding it inconsistent with legal principles.
   • Stressed the danger of allowing applications from non-parties, setting a precedent for future cases.

6. Supreme Court's Decision: Set aside judgments of the High Court and trial court, quashing the restoration application. Directed the trial court to independently evaluate the pending application from the legal heirs. No costs were awarded.

7. Outcome: The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the importance of procedural fairness and consistency in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need to prioritize applications from relevant parties.