23 WP-4593-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4593 OF 2023 Hasan Nana Pevekar (since deceased, through LR) ...Petitioner Versus Abdul Karim Ibrahim Kardekar (since deceased, through LRs) and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Shashank C. Mangle (through VC), Mr. Tanmay M. Shembavanekar for the Petitioner . —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 19th November, 2025. P. C. : 1. The Petition challenges the order dated 26th February, 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the legal heir of one Hasan Nana Pevekar who had filed Revision Application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) against the order of the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, which was numbered as Revision Application No. 91 of 2001. The said Hasan Pevekar expired on 31st October, 2009 and the Revision Application Sairaj 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AS:9854 23 WP-4593-2023.doc was dismissed by order of 11th January, 2010 as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were reported dead and no steps were taken as also Respondent No. 3 was not served. Respondent No. 4 who is the brother of present Petitioner filed the application for restoration of Revision No. 91 of 2001 which was disposed for non-prosecution with liberty to file fresh application by order of 23rd March, 2011. Instead of filing Restoration Application, the Respondent No. 4 filed fresh Revision Application being Revision No. 274 of 2011, which came to be dismissed by order of 30th May, 2012. He submits that Petitioner is the sister of Respondent No. 4 who was not made party to the proceedings and was unaware that the revision application has been dismissed. Upon becoming aware of the proceedings, the Petitioner filed an application seeking to restore the Revision Application No. 91 of 2001 and filed an application for condonation of delay of 2598 days. He submits that as the Petitioner was not aware of the proceedings and was not impleaded, there is sufficient reason to condone the delay. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. MRT has observed about insufficiency of grounds set out in application seeking condonation of delay and has refused to exercise discretion in favor of Petitioner. The specific finding is that grounds and reasons which are assigned by Applicant to seek restoration, which was dismissed for non-prosecution are beyond comprehension. Delay is Sairaj 2 of 3 23 WP-4593-2023.doc substantial delay of 2598 days and there is no sufficient explanation tendered for condonation of delay of 2598 days. The Petitioner is the sister of Respondent No. 4 and the only reason which has been assigned is that the Petitioner was married and residing at her matrimonial house. The same is not sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay of almost 2598 days particularly, when there is no pleading that relationship between Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 were not cordial. The Respondent No. 4 had withdrawn the application seeking restoration and had instead filed a Revision Petition. It appears that Petitioner is now seeking to give a fresh life to the lis by filing fresh application claiming to be unaware of the pendency of the proceedings. The discretion has been rightly exercised by MRT by considering the reasons which are set out in Application. The delay of 2598 days, i.e. almost 8 years and 3 months is an inordinate and unexplained delay, which cannot be condoned. 5. In light of above, no case has been made out for interference with discretion exercised by MRT under the powers conferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India, Petition stands dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Sairaj 3 of 3