Surendra G. Shankar & Anr v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors., 2025

• The appellants had filed complaints before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Mumbai regarding the possession of a flat, but their complaints were dismissed.
• There was another order discharging the developer from the proceedings, which the appellants also challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.
• However, one of the appeals was filed after the prescribed time limit, and the appellants filed an application for condonation of delay.
• The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application, stating that the order was passed in the presence of the parties, and there was no sufficient cause for delay.
• The appellants then approached the High Court, which opined that, under normal circumstances, it would have condoned the delay but went on to comment on the merits of the case.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s observations on the merits of the case.

• Whether the High Court was justified in commenting on the merits of the case while examining only the condonation of delay.
• Whether the High Court’s observations on the merits, despite the limited scope of the appeal, affected the fairness of the trial.
• Whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the facts presented.
• Whether the Appellate Tribunal is the appropriate body to examine the merits of the case after condoning the delay.

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that:

• This judgment underscores the limited scope of appeals focused solely on procedural aspects like condonation of delay. It establishes that appellate courts should refrain from delving into the merits of the case when the scope of the appeal is strictly procedural.
• The decision clarifies the role of the High Court in appeals where the sole issue is delay, reaffirming that the merits should be decided only after procedural obstacles like delay are cleared.
• The judgment safeguards the principle of fair trial and ensures that the Appellate Tribunal has the opportunity to review the merits of the case without prejudice from premature observations made by the High Court.
• By allowing the delay to be condoned, the Court upholds the right of the parties to have their case heard and examined on its merits, thus preventing the dismissal of their appeals solely on procedural grounds.
• The ruling emphasizes the importance of adherence to procedural fairness in the justice system, especially when procedural lapses like delay are at issue. It encourages judicial bodies to focus on the core issue when an appeal is based on procedural concerns and not to overstep by prematurely deciding on the merits.
• This case is particularly relevant in civil matters where delays can be common and procedural fairness plays a crucial role in ensuring justice for all parties involved.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

• The Court noted that the scope of the appeal before the High Court was narrow and limited only to examining whether the Appellate Tribunal’s decision to deny condonation of delay was correct.
• The High Court erred by commenting on the merits of the case when its role was restricted to dealing with the procedural issue of delay.
• The Court further emphasized that the merits of the case could only be examined after the delay was condoned and the case was restored for adjudication on its substantive issues.
• The bench pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal had not dealt with the merits, and therefore, it was inappropriate for the High Court to comment on them.