14-WP-1475-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2019 M/s. Darolo and Associates Through Its Partner. …Petitioner Vs. Union Of India and Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10734 OF 2019 Mr. S. C. Wakankar for the petitioner. Mr. Aryanraj A. A. i/b. N. R. Bunba for respondent no.1 Dr. G. R. Sharma a/w. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Rushikesh Tondwalkar for respondent no.3. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 31st JULY 2026 ORDER : WRIT PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2019 1. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff no.1 to challenge the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application for condonation of delay in applying for restoration of the suit against defendant nos. 1 and 2. 2. The suit was dismissed on 1st July 2014 against defendant nos. 1 and 2 for not taking any steps to serve them. After a period of more than four years, an application 1/7 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:33211 14-WP-1475-2019.docx was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the suit against defendant nos. 1 and 2 along with the application for restoration of the suit. For want of any satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, the application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 3. After hearing the parties, this court on 6th February 2019 had directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs have disposed of all three units by registered document and place on record the sale deeds if the documents are executed. The petitioner was further directed to place on record the documentary evidence to show that they have carried out construction after obtaining permission from the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the said directions, an additional affidavit of the documents is filed. The copies of the three registered sale deeds are produced on record. So far as the permission for directions from the authorities is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 6th August 1986 passed by the trial court in the suit permitting the plaintiffs to carry out construction. The copy of the order 2/7 14-WP-1475-2019.docx is annexed to the additional affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that there is due compliance of the directions issued by this court. 5. For supporting the submissions for condonation of delay, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the contents of the application. He submits that the record was required to be reconstructed. He further relies upon the averments made in the application before the trial court that, as per Exhibits ‘9’ and ‘10’, the trial court had issued suo moto notice to the plaintiff as well as defendants. He, therefore, submits that if the notice issued by the court was served, the plaintiffs were not required to take further steps. He submits that the presence of defendant nos. 1 and 2 is necessary to decide the prayers in the suit, as in the absence of defendant nos. 1 and 2, the prayers seeking declaration regarding the ownership of the property cannot be adjudicated. He, therefore, submits that in view of the contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay, the trial court should have considered it liberally, as the plaintiffs’ rights on the merits would be affected if the presence of defendant nos.1 and 2 is not secured. He, 3/7 14-WP-1475-2019.docx therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside and the suit be restored against defendant nos. 1 and 2. 6. I have perused the papers of the writ petition and the additional affidavit. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is an order modifying the earlier direction for maintaining status quo. The plaintiffs were permitted to make a construction subject to the available FSI and the new scheme and payment of freehold charges. The arguments made on behalf of the petitioner that in view of this order no further permission of the authorities was necessary cannot be accepted. The trial court’s order nowhere permitted the plaintiffs to carry out construction without any appropriate permission from the appropriate authority. This court vide order dated 6th February 2019 had directed the petitioner to place on record the documentary evidence to show that the plaintiffs carried out construction after obtaining permission from the authority. The additional affidavit, therefore, cannot be accepted as due compliance of the said directions issued by this court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an alternate argument that, as pleaded in the plaint, the 4/7 14-WP-1475-2019.docx permissions were granted by the authorities. However, he is unable to show the permissions. 8. The trial court has refused to condone the delay for want of any satisfactory explanation. The grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner that as the court had suo moto issued notice to the plaintiffs and the defendants, the notice must have been served cannot be a ground for not taking steps for more than four years. The trial court has observed in the impugned order that even as per the statements made on behalf of the plaintiffs, the grounds for condonation of delay of more than four years cannot be accepted. It is recorded that despite the suo moto order issuing notice, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to proceed and secure the presence of the defendants. 9. It is further recorded that unnecessarily the suit is kept pending. Even in the present writ petition or the additional affidavit of compliance, nothing is shown to support the grounds for condonation of delay for more than four years. In the absence of any explanation for the delay of four years, the trial court has rightly refused to condone the delay. Non- compliance with the directions issued by this Court would 5/7 14-WP-1475-2019.docx also be an additional ground for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 10. There is no illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order warranting any interference by this court. 11. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. WRIT PETITION NO. 10734 OF 2019 1. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff no.2 to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application to bring on record the names of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no.1 as party plaintiffs. 2. The application to bring on record the parties as the heirs of plaintiff no.1 is filed only on behalf of plaintiff no.2, and the proposed plaintiffs have not applied to bring them on record as the heirs of plaintiff no.1. The application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of more than 18 years and 2 months. For want of any satisfactory explanation, the application is rejected. 6/7 14-WP-1475-2019.docx 3. The application was opposed by defendant no.3 on the ground that it was not bona fide and filed with suppression of true facts. It was also objected on the ground that the application is not signed by the heirs who are sought to be brought on record. 4. I have perused the papers of this petition. Nothing is shown before this court that the heirs and legal representatives of plaintiff no.1 had applied to bring them on record. In the absence of any such application and in the absence of any explanation for the delay of more than 18 years, the trial court has rightly refused to condone the delay. 5. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is therefore rejected. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 7/7