* THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1053 of 2022
% Date: 14th October, 2022
G.RAVI
... Petitioner
Vs.
R.VENKATESH
..Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Police Venkat Reddy, Advocate
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Y.Satya Kumar, Advocate
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 459
2. (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363
3. AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32
Dr.Justice Shameem Akther
2 CRP No.1053 of 2022
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1053 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 10.02.2022, passed in I.A.No.421 of 2020 in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020, by the XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, whereby, the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner/plaintiff to condone the delay of 541 days in filing the subject A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020, was dismissed.
2. Heard the submissions of Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, Sri Y.Satya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant and perused the record.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.174 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District against the respondent/defendant seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent/defendant contested the said suit. The trial Court dismissed the said suit on merits, vide judgment and decree, dated 01.04.2019. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020 before the Court below along with the Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 3 CRP No.1053 of 2022 subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 seeking to condone the delay of 541 days in preferring the said appeal. The Court below, after hearing both sides, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the subject application, vide impugned order, dated 10.02.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the Court below gravely erred in dismissing the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020. The judgment in O.S.No.174 of 2016 was pronounced by the trial Court on 01.04.2019. A copy application was filed to obtain certified copy of the judgment on 09.04.2019 and the same was complied on 27.04.2019. At the time of disposal of the subject suit, the petitioner/plaintiff was working as Forest Divisional Officer, Nagarjunasagar, and he retired from service in the month of May, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff was preoccupied with his work to settle his retirement benefits etc., and could not visit the suit schedule property. In the meantime, COVID-19 pandemic situation intervened and the Courts did not function for some days. During the absence of the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant tried to make constructions over the suit schedule property on 22.10.2020. Protesting the same, the petitioner/plaintiff lodged a complaint before Municipal authorities and made attempts to settle the matter with the respondent/defendant before elders. However, the respondent/ defendant refused to settle the matter on 19.11.2020, which Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 4 CRP No.1053 of 2022 constrained the petitioner/plaintiff to file the subject unregistered appeal before the Court below along with the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 seeking to condone delay of 541 days in preferring the appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton. The subject suit was dismissed on technical grounds. There are fair chances of success of the petitioner/plaintiff in the subject unregistered appeal. If delay is not condoned, irreparable loss would ensue to the petitioner/plaintiff and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant would contend that there are laches on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in pursuing the matter. No compromise talks were held with regard to the suit schedule property, as contended by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to properly explain the inordinate delay of 541 days in filing the subject unregistered appeal before the Court below. The suit was dismissed on 01.04.2019 and the petitioner/plaintiff retired from service in the month of May, 2020, i.e., after about one year. There is no proper explanation as to what prevented the petitioner/plaintiff to prefer an appeal within the statutory period. The Court below, after careful analysis of the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, rightly dismissed the subject I.A. While seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the applicant must explain each day's delay in filing the appeal, which the petitioner/plaintiff failed to do in the instant case. Though Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 5 CRP No.1053 of 2022 the Court can justifiably adopt liberal approach in condoning the delay of short period, the approach should be stricter in case of inordinate delay. Further, the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to the extent of seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. The contentions raised by the petitioner/plaintiff are untenable. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned order, dated 10.02.2022, passed by the Court below and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions.
1. Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another1
2. Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2
3. Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana3
6. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:
"Whether the impugned order, dated 10.02.2022, passed in I.A.No.421 of 2020 in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020 by the XVI Additional District Judge at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the lower appellate Court declined to condone the delay of 541 days, is liable to be set aside?1
(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 459 2 (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363 3 AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 6 CRP No.1053 of 2022 POINT:-
7. Before proceeding further, it is apt to have an overlook on the law of limitation. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties, but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redressal of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if 'sufficient cause' is shown for not availing the remedy within the statutory period. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate/abnormal. Even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of 'reasonable time' and 'proper conduct' of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness"
Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 7 CRP No.1053 of 2022 as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligations of parties. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both the parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party, the valuable right that has accrued to it in law.
8. In the light of the above settled legal position, now let us examine whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020 in A.S.(SR) No.2495 of 2020. A delay of 541 days cannot be said to be a normal delay. The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the Court below, on contest, on 01.04.2019. A copy application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 09.04.2019, which was complied on 27.04.2019. The petitioner/plaintiff had a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the suit, dated 01.04.2019, within thirty days. However, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the subject unregistered appeal Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 8 CRP No.1053 of 2022 before the Court below on 23.11.2020, i.e., with a delay of 541 days. The reason shown by the petitioner/plaintiff is that he retired from service in May, 2020 and thereafter, he was pursuing to settle his retirement benefits etc; There were some settlement talks going on, which do not materialize; In the meantime, COVID-19 pandemic situation intervened and the Courts did not function for some days. During the absence of the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant tried to make constructions over the suit schedule property on 22.10.2020, which constrained the petitioner/plaintiff to prefer the subject unregistered appeal with a delay of 541 days. This Court is not convinced and satisfied with the reason shown by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff was a Government servant. He retired from service in a good position, i.e., Forest Divisional Officer. Hence, it cannot be construed that he was unaware of his legal rights and the consequences for not exercising such rights within statutory period. Nothing prevented him from filing the subject unregistered appeal within the limitation period. Further, the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that compromise talks were held with regard to the suit schedule property was denied by the respondent/defendant. Further, nothing is placed on record to hold that compromise talks were held and failed. Further, the suit was dismissed on 01.04.2019 and the copy application was complied by 27.04.2019. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff had a right to prefer the appeal by 27.05.2019.
Dr.Justice Shameem Akther 9 CRP No.1053 of 2022 Admittedly, in view of COVID-19 pandemic, complete lock-down was imposed with effect from 24.03.2020. Even there was nothing like COVID-19 pandemic as on the last date of expiry of period of limitation. What emerges from a conspectus of the facts and events narrated above is unexplained inaction, lathergic, calluos and casual approach of the petitioner/plaintiff in exercising his legal rights and filing the appeal within the period of limitation as indicated. The petitioner/plaintiff had not acted with due diligence. There are laches on his part. Law helps the vigilant and not those who sleep over their right (vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt). The Court below rightly dismissed the subject I.A.No.421 of 2020. There is no patent error or manifest irregularity in the order under challenge so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 14th October, 2022 Note:-
Mark LR copy.
(B/O) BVV