THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2829 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging the order, dated 26.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in O.S.No.363 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby, the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 780 days in preferring the subject appeal, was dismissed.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the delay occurred in preferring the subject appeal was neither intentional nor wanton, but for the ill-health of the petitioner/defendant and COVID-19 pandemic prevailing then. The Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. The subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, was for 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022 recovery of money, which was decreed on 15.07.2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Sumoto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of delay in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the petitioner/defendant was suffering from ill-health and she took treatment at Singareni Collieries Company Limited hospital and other private hospitals. Further, she is an uneducated woman. She came to know about the decree and judgment passed against her through her employer, when she received salary attachment warrant pertaining to her. Later she filed a copy application on 03.08.2021 which was complied with by the Court below on 06.09.2021 and thereafter, she approached her counsel for filing the subject appeal. The petitioner/defendant has got good grounds for success in the appeal. The Court below failed to take into consideration the above aspects and erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. It is settled law that it is always better to decide the matter on merits rather than on technicalities. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are designed with an objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. Further, while considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should take liberal pragmatic, justice oriented and a non-pedantic view. In the affidavit filed in support of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, the petitioner/defendant has clearly 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022 explained the circumstances under which she could not file the appeal in time, but the Court below erroneously held that there was no convincing material in filing the appeal with delay and that it is not fit to consider the subject application. No prudent person would afford to allow limitation for filing the application to expire, when he/she got a good case in his/her favour. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have condoned the delay of 780 days and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the impugned order and would submit that the petitioner/defendant failed to adduce her evidence before the Court below on three occasions and as such evidence on her behalf was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 14.11.2018. Then, the petitioner/defendant filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 30.01.2019 along with an application to reopen the suit by adducing defendant's side evidence. Accordingly, the Court below granted time on 29.04.2019, on condition that the petitioner/defendant should be ready for giving her evidence on the next day and posted the matter to 11.06.2019. Even on that day, the petitioner/defendant was absent. Though sufficient time was granted, the petitioner/defendant did not turn up to give evidence.
4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP No.2829 of 2022
The counsel for the petitioner/defendant also did not turn up to argue the case. Under these circumstances, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 15.07.2019. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.6 of 2021 for executing the decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P.No.982 of 2021 before this Court. During the course of arguments in the said Civil Revision Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has not raised any ground nor placed any material in support of his case and hence, this Court dismissed the said Civil Revision Petition vide order, dated 21.10.2021. The petitioner/defendant filed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 suppressing all these facts. The petitioner/defendant has no case at all and she is adopting dilatory tactics under the guise of ill-health and COVID-19 pandemic due to which, the respondent/plaintiff is not able to execute the decree passed in her favour. No reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner/defendant in filing the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 with a huge delay of 780 days. There are no circumstances to interfere with the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:
Whether the impugned order, dated 26.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in O.S.No.363 of 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is liable to be set aside?
POINT:
6. Law on the aspect of condonation of delay is well settled. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have been repeatedly pointing out that Courts must adopt liberal approach in the matters of condonation of delay, where there are justifiable grounds. If the reasons for the delay are bona fide and the applicant does not derive any benefit because of the delay, the Courts must condone the delay by adopting liberal approach. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal/application with delay. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, so that the other side cannot claim to have vested right in the injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay has occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides, unless proven otherwise. It must be born in mind that judiciary is respected not for its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice, which it is expected to do so. Hence, 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022 the Courts must adopt a justice-oriented and a non-pedantic approach, when there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
7. In the instant case, undoubtedly, there is a long delay of 780 days. The Court below while dismissing the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, held that the petitioner/defendant did not place any convincing material to condone the delay and as such, it is not a fit case to consider subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, more particularly, when the said application was filed at a belated stage i.e. after issuance of warrant of attachment of salary of the petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, the subject suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs.1,72,034/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner/defendant contends that she was suffering from ill-health and in the meantime, COVID-19 pandemic started and as such, she could not approach her counsel for filing the appeal. There is record to show that the petitioner/defendant was suffering from ill-health and she was admitted at Sri Laxmi Gayathri Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad on 28.12.2020 and was discharged on 30.12.2020, on the reference of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Singareni Collieries Limited, Bhoopalapally. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumoto Writ 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022 Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 held that there is no requirement of filing an application seeking condonation of delay/showing sufficient cause for non-filing the suit/proceeding during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Citing the said decision, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant argued that the delay in filing the subject appeal would be minimal and not (780) days. Further, if the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff and on the other hand it would enable both the parties to have their dispute decided on merits. Considering the issues that are required to be addressed in the subject appeal and the fact and that technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice and that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner/defendant can be afforded an opportunity, as the explanation offered is a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and the length of the delay is no matter and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. The Court below ought not to have adopted a hypertechnical view in considering the subject appeal I.A.No.1 of 2022. In the considered view of this Court, the facts and circumstances of the case afford sufficient grounds to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner/defendant. Viewed thus, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 780 days in filing the subject appeal.
8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRP No.2829 of 2022
8. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the Court below is not justified in dismissing the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 and therefore, the order under challenge warrants interference of this Court.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and order, dated 26.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in O.S.No.363 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem is set aside. Consequently, the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands allowed by condoning the delay of 780 days caused in filing the said application. The Court below shall register the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and proceed further, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 29th March, 2023 Ksk