Namuduri Suryanarayana Murthy vs Ayila Venkata Ramarao
2023 Latest Caselaw 2601 AP

   THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

      CIVIIL REVISION PETITION No. 72 OF 2020


ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.36 of

2019 O.S.No.230 of 2008, dated 14.06.2019 passed by the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st

petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the respondents herein

are the Defendants in the suit in O.S.230 of 2008 which was

filed for grant of permanent injunction on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram (for short "the Court below").

In the said suit, the sole plaintiff therein died on 05.02.2017

leaving behind his wife and daughter who succeeded the

estate of deceased plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6

who are going to be added as legal representatives of the

deceased-sole plaintiff have filed I.A.No.36 of 2019 in

O>S.No.230 of 2008 seeking to condone the delay for setting

aside the abated order against the sole plaintiff for permitting

to bring the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 on record. The same was

dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 14.06.2019.

Aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition

came to be filed.

3. Heard Sri Srinivasarao Pappu, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the

respondents.

4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the

petitioners argued that the sole plaintiff died on 5.2.2017

leaving his wife and daughter who succeeded the estate of

plaintiff. Due to demise of plaintiff as they are in deep shock

unable to take steps for their impleadment within time. He

further argued that the Order passed by the Court below is

illegal and contrary to law. The Court below ought to have

taken into consideration that the suit in O.S.230 of 2008 is

still pending and in the pending suit only, the petition for

condonation of delay has filed to implead the L.Rs. of the

deceased plaintiff and also ought to have taken into

consideration the fact that the petitioners are the helpless

widow and daughters who are under deep shock. He further

submits that the delay is only because of sufferance they

sustained due to the sudden demise of sole plaintiff. It is

neither wilful nor wanton on the part of the petitioners,

therefore, learned counsel request this Court to pass

appropriate orders. In support of his contentions, he relied on

the following judgments:

(1) In Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors., Vs.

Gobardhan Sao & Ors.,1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that:

"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a

2002 (2) Supreme 143.

period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari (1969) 1 SCR 1006 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 1 SCC

366.

13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a

loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. "

(2) In Guru Uday Chandra & Ors., Vs. Koyya

Prasad Reddy & Ors.,2 wherein the High Court of A.P., held

that:

"The logic of the decisions of the Supreme Court, in my considered opinion, clearly apply and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that the decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in T.Sarojamma (1 supra) (that if an application to set aside abatement or to condone the delay in seeking to set aside abatement are not filed, the application to bring on record legal representatives of the deceased party filed beyond time, cannot be maintained) is not correct. I am also of the considered opinion that Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC had been inserted specifically to mitigate the hardship arising from the fact that the party to a suit or an appeal may not come to know about the death of the other party during the pendency of the suit or appeal and a duty is cast upon the advocate appearing for the party who comes to know about the death of the party to communicate the Court about the same. All procedure is a hand-maid of justice and a hyper technical approach in a situation where steps are taken by a party as soon as they came to know

2015 (4) CurCC 57.

about the death of the other party, would defeat the ends of justice."

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents submits that except the proposed petitioner

there are no L.Rs. to deceased and no other reasons

explained for causing abnormal delay in necessary

impleadment. He further submits that under Section 5 of

Limitation Act, petition cannot be automatically allowed

without explaining the reasons to the satisfaction of the

Court. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the

judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency

Private Limited and Another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation3.

The facts of the above case are not applicable to

the present facts of the case.

6. On perusing the material available on record

and on hearing the submissions made by both the

counsels, this Court observed that admittedly, the sole

plaintiff died on 5.2.2017. The proposed L.Rs petition

2022 (10) SCC 592

under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on

28.12.2018, with a delay of 538 days. The contention of

the petitioner for the delay in filing the petition is due to

shock caused in view of sudden demise of sole plaintiff.

It is the contention of the respondent that the delay of

538 days is not explained by the petitioners.

7. The expression 'sufficient cause' within the

meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Order 22

Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as similar

other provisions and the ambit of exercise of powers

thereunder have been subject matter of consideration

before this Court on numerous occasions and while

considering scope of the expression 'sufficient cause' within

the meaning of Section 5 of the Act, the Court laid down

that the said expression should receive a liberal

construction so as to advance substantial justice when no

negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a

party.

8. On perusal of the entire material available on record

and on perusal of the citations referred supra, admittedly,

the ground chosen by the petitioners in filing the Legal

Representation petition that due to shock in view of death

of sole plaintiff, which is not acceptable. Though, the

principles laid down in the Ram Nath Sao's case are

acceptable, the facts in the present case are entirely

different. In the case on hand, the petitioners are having

knowledge that the case is pending before the Court and

when the case is pending before this Court, it is their

bounden duty when the plaintiff died, they should

immediately approach their counsel to defend their case. It

seems that at first instance they don't want to proceed with

their case because there is no necessity to proceed further

in this case.

9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the

opinion that the petitioners did not show sufficient and

reasonable cause in filing the petition with a delay and

there are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and no

interference is required with the trial Court order and this

petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous

applications shall stand closed.

______________________ DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J 28.04.2023 MNR

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 72 OF 2020

28.04.2023

MNR