Supreme Court Holds That a Stranger to a Suit Cannot Seek Condonation of Delay for Its Restoration

In Vijay Laxman Bhawe (since deceased) through Legal Heirs v. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 313 SC), the Supreme Court held that a person who is not a party to a suit cannot maintain an application seeking condonation of delay for restoration of that suit. The Court ruled that entertaining such an application at the instance of a stranger to the proceedings is legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of civil procedure. 

The dispute concerned certain lands situated in Thane, Maharashtra, which had been acquired by the State for public purposes. In 2002, the original plaintiff instituted a civil suit challenging the land acquisition and alternatively sought benefits under the CIDCO Gaonthan Extension Scheme. After the plaintiff's death, his legal heirs were brought on record. However, in 2011, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. In 2019, the legal heirs filed an application seeking condonation of delay for restoration of the suit, which remained pending. During the pendency of that application, P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd., claiming rights under an unregistered Agreement for Sale executed by the legal heirs in 2009, filed a separate application in 2021 seeking condonation of nearly ten years' delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. The Trial Court condoned the delay, and the Bombay High Court affirmed the order while enhancing the costs. The legal heirs of one of the defendants challenged these orders before the Supreme Court. 

Whether a person who is not a party to the suit can maintain an application seeking condonation of delay for restoration of the suit, particularly when a similar application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff is already pending. 

The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court's approach was wholly unsustainable. The Court observed that: •P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. was not a party to the suit and had never been impleaded in the proceedings. •Its claim was based only on an unregistered Agreement for Sale, and the Court deliberately refrained from commenting on its validity so as not to prejudice the parties' rights. •A stranger to the proceedings cannot seek condonation of delay for restoration of a suit. •Accepting such an approach would permit "any Tom, Dick and Harry" to move restoration applications despite having no legal status in the proceedings. •The Trial Court acted improperly by deciding the third party's application while leaving pending the restoration application filed earlier by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. •The High Court failed to examine the fundamental objection that the applicant was a stranger to the suit and ignored the settled legal principles governing condonation of delay. •The Court also expressed a prima facie view that the reasons relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court would not constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning such an extraordinary delay. 

The Supreme Court: •Allowed the appeal. •Set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court condoning the delay at the instance of P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. •Clarified that the restoration application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in 2019 should be decided independently on its own merits in accordance with law. 

The judgment reinforces that only parties to a proceeding, or persons lawfully brought on record, can seek procedural relief such as restoration of a suit. It also reiterates that courts must carefully examine whether an applicant has the necessary legal standing before entertaining restoration or condonation applications. The decision strengthens procedural discipline and prevents abuse of judicial process by third parties lacking locus standi.