Any Tom, Dick and Harry who is not a party cannot move application for condonation of delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by a trial court in Maharashtra which allowed a third party to file a condonation of delay application for the restoration of a land acquisition suit. [Vijay Laxman Bhawe Since Deceased v. P And S Nirman Pvt Ltd].The Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta also quashed a Bombay High Court judgment which had upheld the trial court order."If the approach as adopted by the trial court is approved, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit even if he is not a party to the subject suit," the Court said..The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the trial court and High Court decisions.Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that trial court should not have entertained an application from a third party as they were unrelated to the proceedings, especially when a pending application was already in process before the trial court since November 2019..On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate CA Sundaram, argued that the third-party applicant had in fact acquired a right to be party to the suit due to an unregistered agreement for sale made in 2009. Thus, he was justified in filing the condonation of delay application as the other respondents (original plaintiffs) were not pursuing the same..Without commenting on the agreement of sale, the Court found the trial court order allowing the delay application to be unsustainable in law."Apart from that, an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit at the behest of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff is very much pending since 7th November 2019. It is difficult to understand as to what was the compelling necessity for the trial court to have entertained the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 after a period of two years from the date of filing of the application by respondents No.2 and 3," it added..[Read Judgment]