When Scope Of Appeal Is Limited To Delay Condonation, Merits Of Matter Can't Be Considered : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (recently on January 22) observed that when the scope of an appeal before the High Court is limited to condonation of delay, it should not touch upon the merits of a matter. Elaborating, the Court said that once the delay is condoned, the case's merits can be examined by the appellate tribunal.

“This we say so because 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.”

In the present case, the complaints were initially filed before the Maharastra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai (RERA) for possession of a flat. However, these complaints were dismissed. Importantly, there was another order discharging the developer from the proceedings.

Both of these orders came under challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. Since one of the orders was not filed within the stipulated time, a condonation of delay application was filed. However, the appeals were dismissed noting that the order was passed in the presence of the parties. Thus, there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. When the matter reached the High Court, it opined that, under normal circumstances, it would have condoned the delay. However, stating thus, the Court went on to make some observations on the merits of the case and consequently, dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra, at the outset, pointed out that the High Court should not have commented upon the merits of the orders. It also pointed out that even the Appellate Tribunal had not touched upon the merits. Thus, under these circumstances, the High Court should not have gone into the merits.

“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. In such circumstances, the High Court should have set aside the order rejecting the delay condonation application, condoned the delay and restored the appeals on the file of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for consideration on merits.”

In view of this, the Court allowed the appeals and condoned the delay. Thus, the appeals were restored before the Appellate Tribunal. 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., the Court marked.

Appearances:

Appellants: Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mehta, Adv. Ms. Samridhi S. Jain, AOR Ms. Harshada Shrikhande, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya Dixit, Adv.

Respondents: Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Arnav Narain, AOR, Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Imilikaba Jamir, Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR

Case Name: Surendra G. Shankar & Anr v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 928 OF 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 111

Click here to read/ download the judgment

Related - Delay Can't Be Condoned Based On Merits Of Main Matter If There's No Sufficient Explanation For Delay : Supreme Court