2026 (1) TMI 1103 - AT - Benami Property

Condonation of delay in review application; Covid limitation exclusion limited and inordinate delay with lack of bona fide led to dismissal

Addresses condonation of delay and review jurisdiction, clarifying that a liberal but not unfettered approach applies; the Tribunal distinguished ... Condonation of delay - limitation - liberal but not unfettered approach to condonation - review jurisdiction - error apparent on the face of the record - discovery of new and important matter or evidence - for any other sufficient reason - Tribunal passed the order without proper appreciation of facts and reasons stated by the appellant for the delay. The ground has been raised without realizing the pleadings to the application of CoD and blame has been put to this Tribunal for non-application of mind. HELD THAT:- The distinction between the inordinate delay and delay of short duration of few days has also been made which in the present case is of more than a year because exclusion of the period out of Covid-19 was for those litigants whose limitation was to expire during the period of Covid-19 and not for the benefit of those defaulters who failed to file appeal within a period of limitation expired prior to Covid-19. The grounds urged in the Review Application were not taken in the application of the CoD and perusal of the paras quoted above does not explain any reason of delay after getting certified copy of the order which was admittedly and as per the fairly statement of the Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant obtained in the month of November, 2019 itself. Looking to the facts of this case and the manner the application was filed, it was sufficient to record absolute negligence on the part of the appellant in taking up the remedy, rather, there was lack of bona fide even for filing of the application for CoD. Looking to the aforesaid and limited jurisdiction of this Tribunal while deciding the Review Application, we do not find a case is made out within the framework of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi versus K.L. Rathi Steels Limited [2023 (3) TMI 1503 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Parsion Devi & Ors. [1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT] so as to allow the Review Application. Review Application is accordingly dismissed. Issues: Whether the Review Application filed by the appellant against the Tribunal's order dated 07.02.2024 (dismissing the application for condonation of delay) should be allowed.Analysis: The Review Application was evaluated in light of the limited grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC (discovery of new matter/evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason). The Tribunal found that the Review Applicant sought to raise new factual pleas not advanced in the original condonation application; those facts were within the applicant's knowledge before the impugned order and therefore do not qualify as newly discovered matter. The condonation application itself did not explain the unexplained period after obtaining certified copy of the High Court order (obtained November 2019) and merely invoking engagement of counsel in February 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic did not account for delay of over a year; the Tribunal correctly distinguished the limited COVID-19 exclusion for deadlines expiring during the pandemic from cases where limitation had already expired prior to the pandemic. Authorities on the scope of review (including the limits of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and the requirement of an error apparent) support restricting review to patent errors or truly new evidence rather than re-agitation of merits or re-pleading; the Review Application attempted to make a new case for condonation rather than pointing to any mistake apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered material.Conclusion: The Review Application is dismissed. The decision is in favour of the Respondent.