G. Ravi vs R. Venkatesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5123 Tel

         * 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

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

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

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?

(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 459

(2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363

AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Dr.Justice Shameem Akther

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

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

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

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