Condonation of Delay in Review Petitions: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Meerut Kendriya Thok Upbhokta Sahakari Bandar vs. Vakil Chand Jain
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated February 3, 2017, ruled on the issue of condonation of delay in filing review petitions in the case of Meerut Kendriya Thok Upbhokta Sahakari Bandar vs. Vakil Chand Jain & Ors.. The case revolved around the rejection of review petitions by the High Court due to a delay in filing and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court seeking relief.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dismissing the applications for condonation of delay and allowed the review petitions to be decided on merits. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not stand in the way of substantive justice.
Background of the Case
The appellants, Meerut Kendriya Thok Upbhokta Sahakari Bandar, had previously approached the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 18912-18913 of 2016. The Supreme Court had granted them liberty to file a review petition before the High Court against the judgment dated March 17, 2016, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 29268 of 1992 and 31913 of 1997.
The appellants subsequently filed the review petitions before the High Court. However, these petitions were dismissed on January 13, 2017, on the grounds of delay and for want of prosecution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants argued:
- The delay in filing the review petitions was due to the time spent in pursuing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
- They had been granted specific liberty by the Supreme Court to file a review petition, and the High Court’s dismissal on technical grounds was unfair.
- The delay was not due to negligence or inaction but was an unavoidable consequence of following legal procedures.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents opposed the appeal, stating:
- The appellants had delayed filing the review petitions despite the liberty granted by the Supreme Court.
- The High Court had correctly dismissed the applications as the appellants failed to prosecute their case.
- Allowing a review petition at this stage would unnecessarily prolong the litigation.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the delay in filing the review petitions was primarily due to the appellants’ pursuit of special leave petitions before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled:
“In order to avoid further round of litigation on restoration and the condonation of delay, we set aside the order of dismissal for default of the applications for condonation of the delay.”
The Court held that:
- The applications for condonation of delay were restored.
- The delay in filing the review petitions was condoned.
- The High Court was directed to hear and dispose of the review petitions on merits.
Furthermore, the Court directed that the matter be expedited:
“Since it is a long pending matter, we request the High Court to dispose of the review petitions expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.”
Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision has several key implications:
- Ensures that procedural delays do not prevent substantive justice.
- Clarifies that time spent in pursuing higher remedies should be considered while evaluating delay in review petitions.
- Emphasizes the need for courts to focus on the merits of the case rather than technical procedural lapses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Meerut Kendriya Thok Upbhokta Sahakari Bandar vs. Vakil Chand Jain highlights the importance of allowing review petitions to be heard on merits rather than being dismissed due to procedural delays. By setting aside the High Court’s order and directing a fresh hearing, the judgment reinforces the principle that courts should prioritize substantive justice over technicalities.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Meerut Kendriya Thok vs Vakil Chand Jain & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-02-2017.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Debt Recovery
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
