Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of 645 days delay in filing a review petition against an order dated 6 February 2024 that disposed of First Appeal No.1106 of 2018 -- The applicants claimed delay was due to time taken to engage specialized trust litigation counsel, summer vacation period, family wedding, and settlement attempts with respondents -- The Court found all reasons insufficient, vague, and unsupported by documentary evidence -- The Court held that attempts at settlement made after one year from the impugned order could not explain delay during the limitation period -- The application was dismissed as no sufficient cause was demonstrated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an interim application seeking condonation of delay of 645 days in filing a review petition -- The application was filed by appellants in First Appeal No.1106 of 2018 seeking to review an order dated 6 February 2024 -- The Court held that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 -- The reasons provided including time taken to engage specialized counsel, summer vacation period, family wedding, and settlement attempts were found to be vague, unsupported by documents, and not constituting sufficient cause -- The Court emphasized that the time taken by appellate authorities to decide matters cannot justify delay in filing review petitions -- The application was dismissed with no order as to costs
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the delay of 645 days in filing the review petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the interim application for condonation of delay -- No order as to costs -- The review petition could not proceed due to dismissal of condonation application
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 34
Interim Application No. 892 of 2026 with Review Petition (St.) No. 40325 of 2025 in First Appeal No. 1106 of 2018
Mr. Tushad Kakalia a/w Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr. Suraj Agarwal i/by Crawford Bayley for Applicants, Ms. Kashish Singhi for respondent no.2
Vinodkumar Chetram Ganeriwala, Jitesh Vinodkumar Ganeriwala
Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad Poddar, Kamlesh Vijaykumar Ganeriwala, The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Interim application for condonation of delay in filing review petition
Remedy Sought
Applicants sought condonation of 645 days delay in filing review petition against order dated 6 February 2024
Filing Reason
To review the order disposing of First Appeal No.1106 of 2018 which involved trust matters and remand orders
Previous Decisions
First Appeal No.1106 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 6 February 2024
Issues
Whether the delay of 645 days in filing the review petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued delay was due to time taken to engage specialized trust litigation counsel -- Summer vacation period caused delay -- Family wedding disrupted litigation attention -- Settlement attempts were made with respondents -- Important question of law involved regarding remand orders and appellate powers
Ratio Decidendi
For condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause with specific details and supporting documents -- Vague and general statements without documentary evidence cannot constitute sufficient cause -- Time taken by appellate authorities to decide matters cannot justify delay in filing review petitions -- Settlement attempts made after expiry of limitation period cannot explain delay during the limitation period
Judgment Excerpts
This interim application is taken out by the applicants for seeking condonation of delay of 645 days in filing review petition -- The reason given in paragraph 4 states that the applicants were constrained to engage a counsel who is an expert in trust matters -- In my view, this cannot be a ground which would constitute 'sufficient cause' -- The submission made by the learned counsel that because the change report pertains to 2004 and the first appeal is decided in 2024 i.e., after almost 2 decades when compared with the delay of 645 days is very short cannot be accepted
Procedural History
First Appeal No.1106 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 6 February 2024 -- Review petition was filed on 18 December 2025 with delay of 645 days -- Interim Application No.892 of 2026 was filed for condonation of delay -- The Court heard arguments on 2 February 2026 and dismissed the application
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
