Ferrari Estate L L P vs Mcd on 13 April, 2026
5. I have perused the record. The present appeal was filed on 19.09.2019 and
there is no application seeking condonation of delay. The appellant claims that
the formal copy of the impugned sanction for the first time was received in
August 2019 through RTI and therefore the limitation shall start from that date.
This submission of the appellant is incorrect because the appellant himself has
mentioned about the impugned sanction in the application filed under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC dated 30.08.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C)
No.7081 of 2017 titled as Amaltas Avenue Residents Welfare Society Vs UOI
and Ors. This writ was filed against the impugned sanction on some other
grounds. The appellant preferred an application for impleadment on 30.08.2017.
In Para 5 of this application the appellant stated that the impugned sanction has
been obtained fraudulently by respondent No.2 claiming to be the only owner. In
Para 9 of this application it was stated that the sanction does not even mention
the area situated specifically in which the sanction for construction of Motel has
been given to respondent No.2 who was respondent No.5 in that writ. In Para
13 it was specifically stated that the rights of the appellant would be infringed if
judicial recognition is given to this sanction and prayer was made to supply the
copy of the record pertaining to this sanction. Admittedly, there was no prayer
before the Hon'ble High Court to get the copy of this sanction. Only the record
pertaining to the sanction was sought. The prayer of this application read with
the contents clearly show that the appellant had knowledge and copy of this
sanction on 30.08.2017. In view of the same the present appeal is barred by
limitation and the same was filed almost after two years from the date of
knowledge of this sanction. However, the same is not dismissed on this ground
alone as the appeal otherwise is meritless for the following discussion.