उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह निर्णय दिया है कि किसी वाद में जो व्यक्ति पक्षकार नहीं है, उस अजनबी (stranger) द्वारा विलंब की माफी (condonation of delay) के लिए दायर किया गया आवेदन पूरी तरह से अवैध और गैर-कानूनी है।
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court (SC) of India held that the application for condonation of delay filed by a stranger or a non-party is illegal. The bench constituting Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that allowing a third party to file a condonation of delay application would allow anyone to seek restoration, regardless of their involvement in the suit. The order reads, “entertaining an application filed at the behest of a stranger for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the subject suit is totally unsustainable in law. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not even been impleaded in the subject suit. As such, the application filed at the behest of the stranger, who is not a party to the proceedings, is totally illegal. If the approach as adopted by the trial court is approved, any Tom, Dick and Harry would be permitted to move an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit even if he is not a party to the subject suit.”
The SC bench criticized the decision of the trial court to entertain the application filed by a stranger after a delay of 2 years. The bench remarked “It is difficult to understand as to what was the compelling necessity for the trial court to have entertained the application filed at the behest of respondent No.1 after a period of two years from the date of filing of the application by respondents No.2 and 3” It added, “We do not appreciate the propriety in keeping the application filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in 2019 pending and deciding the subsequent application filed by respondent No.1 in October 2021 within a period of six months. We do not wish to say anything more on it.” Therefore, it overturned the Trial Court and High Court’s decision and said that the orders were not sustainable in law. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate (SA) Mukul Rohatgi, SA Shyam Divan, and SA Sonia Mathur represented the appellant. SA C.A. Sundaram, SA Ardenumauli Prasad, SA Seshadri Naidu, and SA Ajit Bhasme appeared for the respondents.