Dismissed¶¶24

Stuti Nemji Galiya v. N. K. Avanti Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2026WP/2892/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; sufficient cause; limited scope of inquiry in delay condonation; interlocutory order; revision maintainability; appeal converted into revision; Co-operative Appellate Court; writ jurisdiction; no appeal over discretionary orders; perversity; jurisdictional error; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2026; decision dated March 9, 2026; petitioner Stuti Nemji Galiya; respondent N. K. Avanti Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.; 92 days delay; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was held not entertainable and any interim application stood disposed of. ¶¶24

Stuti Nemji Galiya vs N. K. Avanti Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the writ petition was held not entertainable and any interim application stood disposed of.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Co-operative Appellate Court's order condoning the 92-day delay in filing the appeal and converting it into a revision application suffers from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

In dealing with an application for condonation of delay, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the merits of the dispute; the only question is whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause preventing approach within the prescribed time.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Court confined its inquiry to whether the delay was properly explained, and its satisfaction based on the explanation placed before it meant it did not travel beyond its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

In exercising writ jurisdiction this Court does not sit in appeal over discretionary orders such as condonation of delay; such orders should normally not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or wholly unsupported by the material on record.ratio¶¶19
On the facts, the Appellate Court committed no error: the explanation for the delay was accepted after due consideration, the reasoning is neither perverse nor contrary to the material, and the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.) dismisses Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2026 filed by Stuti Nemji Galiya challenging the Co-operative Appellate Court's order condoning a 92-day delay in filing an appeal and treating it as a revision application. Held: in deciding condonation of delay the court examines only whether sufficient cause for the delay is shown, not the merits of the dispute; the writ court does not sit in appeal over such discretionary orders and will not disturb them unless they are perverse or wholly unsupported by the material on record; finding no jurisdictional error or perversity, the Court declined interference and dismissed the petition, disposing of any interim application.

¶1

36-wp-2892-2026 final.doc

¶2

MPBalekar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2026

¶5

Stuti Nemji Galiya … Petitioner V/s.

¶6

N. K. Avanti Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. A. Jha for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Prashant P. a/w Ridhima M. and S. Gupta i/by W3LEGAL LLP.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : MARCH 9, 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The present writ petition takes exception to an order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court whereby a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal came to be condoned. The record further shows that the appeal was thereafter treated and converted into a revision application. The petitioner questions the legality of this order.

¶13

The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the order sought to be challenged before the Appellate Court was only an interlocutory order. According to the petitioner, such an order merely regulates the course of proceedings and does not determine the substantive rights of the parties. On this basis it is argued that a revision itself was not maintainable. The petitioner therefore submits that the Appellate Court ought not to have

¶14

¶15

36-wp-2892-2026 final.doc

¶16

entertained the proceedings and consequently ought not to have condoned the delay.

¶17

I have considered the submission. When the nature of the impugned order and the limited jurisdiction exercised by the Appellate Court is examined closely, the argument does not carry the matter any further. The order under challenge before the Appellate Court was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 92 days. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. The court dealing with such application is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the merits of the dispute between the parties. The only question which the court has to examine is whether the party seeking condonation has shown sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the court within the prescribed time.

¶18

The record indicates that the Appellate Court confined its inquiry only to this limited aspect. The respondent had placed certain reasons explaining why the appeal could not be filed within time. The court considered those reasons and formed an opinion that the delay was properly explained. The satisfaction recorded by the court is thus based upon the explanation placed before it. It cannot be said that the court travelled beyond its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order.

¶19

In exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court does not sit in appeal over such discretionary orders. Unless the reasons recorded by the lower court are shown to be perverse or wholly unsupported by the material on record, the discretionary exercise

¶20

¶21

36-wp-2892-2026 final.doc

¶22

of condoning delay should normally not be disturbed. The reason is simple.

¶23

In the present case I do not find that the Appellate Court has committed any such error. The explanation offered for the delay has been accepted after due consideration. The reasoning cannot be described as perverse or contrary to the material placed before the court.

¶24

In these circumstances no ground is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity which would warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition therefore cannot be entertained.

¶25

The interim application, if any, accordingly stands disposed of. No further orders are required.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Stuti Nemji Galiya v. N. K. Avanti Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stuti Nemji Galiya v. N. K. Avanti Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vaman Nemade vs M/S Aplab Ltd.

Aplab Ltd. vs Nitendra Upadhyay

The Chairman/Secretary Vaishali Madhuban Chs Ltd. vs Rumana a. Godal and Ors.

The Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Thr. Vinod D. Padle vs Alka Rambhau Gapat and Ors.

Mrs. Jayshree Narayan Salvi vs Shri. Janu Umaji Vangule Alias Vangula

Ashok Govind Gadgil and Anr. vs Vikas Govind Gadgil and Ors.