Bombay High Court Rejects State’s Review Petition After 4-Year Delay: “1679-Day Delay Not Adequately Explained, Overruled Judgment Cannot Serve as Ground for Review, No Sufficient Cause Shown for Condoning Inordinate Delay”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State’s Review Petition, citing an inordinate delay of 1679 days (4 years and 7 months) in filing the petition. The court found that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay. Furthermore, the main ground for review, based on an overruled judgment, was expressly prohibited under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Facts:

The State of Maharashtra filed Review Petition (Stamp) No. 19950 of 2022 seeking a review of a judgment dated November 15, 2017, in Writ Petition No. 11997 of 2016. The delay in filing the review petition spanned 1679 days (4 years and 7 months). The State attributed this delay to administrative procedures, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overruling of a precedent in the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Multiple interim applications for intervention were also filed by third parties, seeking to participate in the review process.

Issues:

1. Whether the State demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the 1679-day delay in filing the Review Petition.
2. Whether the change in the law after the overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation case could serve as a ground for reviewing the 2017 judgment.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The State argued that the delay should be excused due to administrative processes and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. They further argued that the review petition was based on the subsequent overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation case by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, a development that the State contended justified the delay.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents contended that the delay of 1679 days was not justified, and the reasons provided by the State were insufficient. They emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, could not explain the delay since the limitation period had already expired in December 2017. They also argued that a change in the law cannot be a valid ground for a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis of the Law:

The court referred to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which explicitly prohibits review petitions based solely on a subsequent change in law. The State’s reliance on the overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment was not a valid ground for review. The court also highlighted that the extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic applied only to cases where the limitation period expired between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Since the limitation period in this case expired in December 2017, the State could not avail of this benefit.

Precedent Analysis:

The court cited Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal, where it was held that the extension of limitation orders due to the pandemic only benefitted litigants whose cases fell within the pandemic period. The court also referred to Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, where the Supreme Court rejected the condonation of delay due to bureaucratic inefficiency. The court further referred to Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, emphasizing that the liberal approach to condonation of delay must be reasonable and not lead to prejudicial outcomes for the opposite party.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court found that the State’s explanation for the delay, including administrative reasons and the pandemic, was insufficient to justify the delay between December 2017 and March 2020. The court concluded that allowing a review based on a subsequent change in law would open the door to endless reviews every time a decision was overruled, undermining the finality of judgments.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the State’s application for condonation of delay, as well as the review petition, citing the lack of sufficient cause for the 1679-day delay. The court also dismissed the interim applications for intervention, stating that the intervenors could pursue independent legal remedies if they were aggrieved by the original judgment.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the strict approach taken by the courts regarding condonation of delays, especially when government entities are involved. It also reinforces the principle that changes in law cannot justify a review of final judgments. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for parties relying on administrative inefficiencies or subsequent legal developments as grounds for delay in pursuing legal remedies.

Also Read – Supreme Court Affirms Doctrine of Lis Pendens: Upholds Specific Performance, Rejects Bona Fide Purchaser Claim for Sale Executed During Pending Litigation