The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that irrespective of the length of the delay if there is ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay, the same can be condoned. Therefore, in each case, the pleas taken supported by evidence shall be considered to examine whether the petitioner can establish ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the partition suit was filed by the plaintiff and the matter was posted for her cross-examination. however, the plaintiff/petitioner couldn’t attend the court on that day as she was suffering from a dysfunctional uterine bleeding problem. The petition for the condonation of the day was filed and the same was opposed by defendant no. 3. The learned trial court allowed the petition imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the plaintiff, observing that there involves only minimal delay of (1187) days and adopting a liberal and pragmatic approach would better serve the ends of justice to decide the substantive rights of the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the property in question was purchased by the 3rd defendant from mother of the defendants 1 & 2 and the plaintiff, however, a false case was filed. It was furthermore submitted that as seen from the medical record she suffered only for a month and no sufficient reason is given for the rest of the period of delay.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Brijesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, Rapaka Anjana Rao Vs. Rapaka Chandrasekhara Rao, Parimal Vs. Veena, Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Director, Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that if there is "sufficient cause" for the delay, it can be excused, regardless of how long it takes. Consequently, the evidence-supported pleas in each case will be taken into account to determine if the petitioner can prove "sufficient cause" for the delay.
It was furthermore observed that the medical record only shows bed rest for only one month and no reason was shown for her inability to attend for the rest of the period.
It was noted that when there is an unexplained long delay, it cannot be condoned to the prejudice of the interest of the contesting party, merely by stating that in the interest of justice.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the trial Court had improperly exercised its jurisdiction in condoning the delay without there being any sufficient cause established for a major part of the delay. The court set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the civil revision petition.
Case no.: C.R.P. No.2721 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
