MahaREAT Rejects 266-Day Delay Condonation Plea, Holds Litigant Cannot Shift Entire Blame to Advocate
Case: Shashank Vengasarkar & Anr. v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Case No.: M.A. No. 1357/26 (Delay) in Appeal No. AT06/00334/2026
Arising from: Complaint No. CC006000000354526
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)
Decision: 10 September 2026
Background
The appellants were homebuyers who had purchased a flat from Larsen & Toubro Ltd. under an Agreement for Sale dated 7 December 2016. Possession was handed over on 20 July 2018. They subsequently filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking interest for alleged delay in possession.
MahaRERA dismissed their complaint on 3 April 2025. The limitation period for filing an appeal expired on 2 June 2025, but the appellants filed the appeal only on 23 February 2026, resulting in a 266-day delay.
Grounds for seeking condonation
The homebuyers submitted that:
they had not received the email communicating the MahaRERA order;
they came to know about the order only on 17 February 2026, when they met their advocate after returning to India;
they were residing outside India for substantial periods; and
their earlier advocate had failed to properly follow up on the proceedings.
They therefore sought condonation of the 266-day delay.
Finding of MahaREAT
MahaREAT rejected the application.
The Tribunal held that a litigant cannot place the entire responsibility for the conduct of litigation upon an advocate. A party is expected to remain vigilant regarding proceedings initiated by them and cannot rely entirely upon the advocate to monitor the case.
The Tribunal found that the circumstances relied upon by the appellants—including their residence outside India and alleged difficulties in communicating with their advocate—did not adequately explain such an inordinate delay.
The Tribunal further observed that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause merely because a liberal approach is generally adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay.
Important legal principle
The Tribunal relied upon decisions including Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, S.R. Vediappan v. S.P. Ramalingam, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector, reiterating that condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation demonstrating sufficient cause and reasonable diligence.
Conclusion
The 266-day delay was not condoned, and the application filed by the homebuyers was dismissed.
Key RERA proposition:
A litigant seeking condonation of substantial delay cannot attribute the entire lapse to the advocate; the party must demonstrate reasonable diligence and provide a convincing explanation constituting sufficient cause for the delay.
