Telangana High Court
M/S Arrow Cables Ltd vs Kartik Vyas on 10 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1180 of 2024
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Maganti Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.01.2024 by which the application preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the delay in setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019, has been allowed.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,51,54,456/-. In the aforesaid suit, an ex parte decree was passed on 13.12.2019. 2
5. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an application on 07.01.2022 seeking to condone the delay of 725 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the trial court vide order dated 22.01.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, has submitted that the respondent No.1 has failed to explain the delay caused in filing the aforesaid application and has not even stated as to when he derived the knowledge about the ex parte judgment and decree. It is, therefore, submitted that the trial court grossly erred in allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
3
8. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well delineated and the Supreme Court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel 1 has held that the High Court cannot act as a Court of appeal and reappreciate and reweigh the evidence and should not substitute its opinion. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision is extracted below for the facility of reference:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of 1 (2022) 4 SCC 181 4 law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
9. In the instant case, it has been pleaded by the respondent No.1 that he has no knowledge about the filing of the suit and thereafter he was served with the summons in the execution petition. However, he could not contact the counsel, as during the coronavirus pandemic his friend was diagnosed with COVID and he was in primary contact and has quarantined himself. It has further been stated that the respondent No.1 learnt about the ex parte judgment and decree when he received the notice of execution proceeding.
10. It is trite law that the expression "sufficient cause"
should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice. Even otherwise, the issue relating to condonation of delay is an issue within the discretion of the Court. The discretion to condone the delay has neither 5 been exercised arbitrarily nor capriciously. The trial court has assigned cogent reasons in paragraphs 13 to 15 of its order and has condoned the delay.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
12. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 10.04.2024 vs/myk