k 1/3 5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7868 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL (STAMP) NO.8825 OF 2025 Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Sanklecha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant V/S Nitin Madhukar Shewale & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Abhishek Pungaliya for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 17 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. The Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 63 days in filing the Second Appeal. Though the Application computes the delay as 63 days, the Registry has computed the delay as 1 year and 63 days in filing the Appeal. 2. It appears that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was passed on 7 November 2023. The Appellant preferred Application for review of the order of the Appellate Tribunal which came to be partly allowed by order dated 28 November 2024 and the Appellant has secured partial relief in the Review Petition. Thus, the original order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7 November 2023 has been modified substantially by review order dated 28 November 2024. In my view therefore, the period during which katkam Page No. 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AS:38067 k 2/3 5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc the Appellant was prosecuting review application deserves to be excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing the present Second Appeal. When computed from 28 November 2024 the delay in filing the present Appeal is only of 63 days. 3. I have gone through the averments made in the Application. In paragraph 5 of the Interim Application the Appellant has pleaded thus: “5. If the period of 371 days (23.11.23 to 28.11.24) for which the Review Application was pending, is excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act/ considered as constituting a sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act which ought to be taken into account while exercising the discretion to extend the period for filing a Second Appeal, then the above captioned Second Appeal is being filed 57 days beyond the 60 days period prescribed by section 58 of the of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act) 2016. The Applicants state that the judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 was subsequently modified/ altered on 28.11.2024 when Review Application No.14 of 2023 came to be partially allowed in a manner that effectively allowed grounds (a) to (i) of the Review Application No.14 of 2023. The relevant portion of the operative part of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 reads as, "The direction to the applicant promoter in para no. 15(b) (ii) of the judgment dated 7th November 2023, stands deleted." The said Review Application No.14/2023 alongwith the judgment am order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Review Application No.14/2023 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C (colly.). An application for review, if successful, to however limited extent, puts an end to the original judgment and order, at any rate for the purpose of filing any appeal upon it. If there is any appeal at all, it must be based upon the judgment and order of the Court in question in its final form, i.e., as modified by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed in the said review application. In support of the said contention, the Applicants rely on AIR 1931 Cal 323. Since the impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 stood modified by virtue of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Review Application No. 14/ 2023, the impugned judgment and order achieved its final form only on 28.11.2024 when it stood modified by the Review Application order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Even otherwise, after the disposal of the said Review Application, the Appellants did not file the above captioned Second Appeal before 10.03.2025 on account of the fact that Mr. Sagar Avhad, the Legal Advisor of the Appellant No.1, who is in charge of handling all litigation-related matters of Respondent No.1 and responsible for coordinating with the Respondent No.1's Advocates, had undergone a hip replacement surgery in 2024 which had cause severe after katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 5 ia 7868.25 in sast 8825.25 as.doc effects which severely impaired his ability to discharge his functions, resulting in delay in the filing of the Second Appeal This circumstance by itself constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as it adequately explains why the above captioned Second Appeal could not be filed before 10.03.2025.” 4. Considering the above justification pleaded, in my view, delay of 63 days in filing the Second Appeal deserves to be condoned. 5. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order: i) Delay in filing the Second Appeal is condoned. 6. Interim Application is allowed and disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/09/2026 11:06:03