Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 102
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Manoj Misra, J.
Can a High Court dismiss an appeal solely on the basis of delay without considering the merits of the case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the rejection of a delay condonation application by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The court held that if the High Court believes the delay should be condoned, it must not comment on the merits of the case. The bench comprised Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, with Justice Manoj Misra authoring the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves two appeals arising from complaints filed before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Mumbai. The complainants, Surendra G. Shankar and Dilip Kumar, claimed to be allottees in a building project registered with RERA. They sought possession of their flats in the “Lodha Venezia” and “Lodha Azzuro” complexes. The complainants impleaded Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. (R-1) and Macrotech Developers Ltd. (R-2) as opposite parties. R-2 was discharged from the proceedings by RERA, Mumbai on July 23, 2019, due to lack of privity of contract. Subsequently, RERA dismissed the complaints on October 16, 2019.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellants filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on December 10, 2019. These appeals questioned both the final order of October 16, 2019, and the order of July 23, 2019. Although the appeals were filed within 60 days of the final order, a delay condonation application was also filed since the appeal challenged the July 23, 2019 order. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on December 1, 2022, citing limitation, stating that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay since the order dated July 23, 2019 was passed in the presence of the parties.
The appellants then filed second appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court dismissed these appeals, noting that while the delay could normally be condoned, the order of July 23, 2019, appeared to be passed with consent. The High Court also noted that no application was made to recall the said order, and the same submissions were made at the final hearing of the complaints. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 23, 2019 | RERA, Mumbai discharged R-2 from proceedings due to lack of privity of contract. |
| October 16, 2019 | RERA, Mumbai dismissed the complaints. |
| December 10, 2019 | Appellants filed appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. |
| December 1, 2022 | The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. |
| August 23, 2023 | The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the second appeals. |
| January 22, 2025 | The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Mumbai, initially discharged Macrotech Developers Ltd. (R-2) from the proceedings due to a lack of contractual privity with the complainants. Subsequently, RERA dismissed the complaints filed by Surendra G. Shankar and Dilip Kumar. The complainants then appealed to the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed their appeals citing limitation. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay as the order dated July 23, 2019, was passed in the presence of the parties. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay also dismissed the second appeals, observing that while the delay could normally be condoned, the order of July 23, 2019, appeared to be passed with consent, and no application was made to recall the same.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, provides a framework for resolving disputes in the real estate sector. However, the specific sections of the Act are not discussed in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the principles governing condonation of delay and the scope of appellate review. The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the principle that when a court considers that delay should be condoned, it should not delve into the merits of the case before the delay is condoned.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants argued that the High Court erred in dismissing their appeals.
- They contended that the High Court should have condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for a decision on merits.
- The appellants disputed that the order dated 23.07.2019 was based on their consent.
- They submitted that the High Court should not have commented on the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019 when the Appellate Tribunal had not addressed the same.
Respondents’ Submissions:
- The respondents argued in support of the High Court’s decision.
- They contended that the order dated 23.07.2019 was passed with the consent of the parties.
- They submitted that the High Court was correct in not interfering with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| High Court’s dismissal of appeals |
|
|
| Order dated 23.07.2019 |
|
|
| Merits of the orders |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals based on delay, without considering the merits of the case, after observing that the delay should have been condoned in normal circumstances.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeals based on delay, without considering the merits of the case, after observing that the delay should have been condoned in normal circumstances. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in commenting on the merits of the case after observing that the delay should have been condoned. The High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration on merits. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
- Ram Kali Devi (Smt) v. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 558: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that the merits of an order can only be examined by the Appellate Court after the delay has been condoned.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Kali Devi (Smt) v. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 558 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that merits can be examined only after delay is condoned. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court erred in dismissing the appeals. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeals based on delay after observing that the delay should have been condoned. |
| High Court should have condoned the delay. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. |
| Order dated 23.07.2019 was based on consent. | The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on this submission. |
| High Court should not have commented on the merits of the orders. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have commented on the merits of the orders when the Appellate Tribunal had not dealt with the same. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed Ram Kali Devi (Smt) v. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 558*, stating that “the scope of the appeal before the High Court was limited to examining the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai declining condonation of delay. Only when the delay is condoned, the merits of the order could be examined by the Appellate Court.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a court should not delve into the merits of a case when the issue before it is only regarding the condonation of delay. The High Court’s observation that the delay should have been condoned in normal circumstances indicated that the High Court itself believed there was sufficient ground to condone the delay. However, the High Court then proceeded to comment on the merits of the case, which the Supreme Court found to be inappropriate. The Supreme Court emphasized that the merits of the case should only be considered after the delay has been condoned.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court’s observation that delay should be condoned | 40% |
| Inappropriateness of commenting on merits before condoning delay | 40% |
| Principle that merits should be considered only after delay is condoned | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Appellate Tribunal rejects delay condonation
High Court observes delay should be condoned
High Court comments on merits
Supreme Court holds High Court erred in commenting on merits before condoning delay
Supreme Court sets aside High Court order, condones delay
Appeals restored to Appellate Tribunal for decision on merits
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred by commenting on the merits of the case when the primary issue was whether the delay should be condoned. The court stated that “Once the High Court opined that in normal circumstances the delay ought to have been condoned, it ought not to have commented upon the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019, particularly, when the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai had not dealt with the correctness of those orders.” The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals for consideration on merits. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the orders passed by RERA, Mumbai.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and also set aside the Appellate Tribunal’s order refusing to condone the delay. The court condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the file of the Appellate Tribunal for consideration on merits. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the orders dated 23.07.2019 and 16.10.2019 passed by RERA, Mumbai. The court stated, “The Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai shall proceed to decide the appeals on its own merits without being prejudiced by any observations made in the orders which have been set aside herein above.”
Key Takeaways
- A High Court should not comment on the merits of a case if the primary issue is whether to condone a delay.
- If a High Court believes a delay should be condoned, it should set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application.
- The merits of a case should only be examined after the delay has been condoned.
- Appellate Tribunals should decide cases on merits without being prejudiced by observations made in orders that have been set aside.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appeals be restored to the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Appellate Tribunal was directed to decide the appeals on their own merits without being prejudiced by any observations made in the orders that were set aside.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a High Court considers that a delay should be condoned, it should not comment on the merits of the case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the issue of delay condonation is distinct from the merits of the case. It clarifies that the merits should only be considered after the delay has been condoned. This ruling does not change the existing law but emphasizes the correct procedure to be followed by appellate courts when dealing with delay condonation applications.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the High Court should not have commented on the merits of the case after observing that the delay should have been condoned. The court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Appellate Tribunal, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal for a decision on merits. This judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of dealing with delay condonation applications in appellate proceedings.
Category
Parent Category: Real Estate Law
Child Categories:
- Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)
- Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
- Condonation of Delay
- Appellate Procedure
Parent Category: Limitation Act, 1963
Child Categories:
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963
- Condonation of Delay
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue is whether a High Court can dismiss an appeal based on delay without considering the merits of the case, especially after observing that the delay should be condoned.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court should not have commented on the merits of the case after observing that the delay should have been condoned. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration on merits.
Q: What does this mean for future cases?
A: This judgment clarifies that appellate courts should first decide on the issue of delay condonation before considering the merits of the case. If a court believes the delay should be condoned, it should not comment on the merits before condoning the delay.
Q: What is condonation of delay?
A: Condonation of delay is the process by which a court allows an appeal or application to be filed after the prescribed time limit, if there is sufficient reason for the delay.