Kannaboinakomraiah, Karimnagar ... vs Eraveni Rajaiah, Karimnagar Dist
2023 Latest Caselaw 1325 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      C.R.P.No.5996 of 2017
ORDER:

This civil revision petition is directed against the order

dated 03.08.2017 in I.A.No.1366 of 2013 in O.S.No.181 of 2010

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Peddapalli.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None

represented the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.181 of 2010

against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of wrongly paid

compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,68,212/- with future

interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of suit till

realization for acquired land by the Land Acquisition Officer,

SCCL, Godavarikhani admeasuring Ac/0-29 guntas situated at

Singireddypalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal. The petitioner was

set ex parte on 07.04.2011 and an ex parte decree was passed on

25.07.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application to set

aside the ex parte decree dated 25.07.2011 stating that he engaged

a counsel to defend his case. Later, he has undergone Left Femur

surgery in Rahul Hospital Ortho and Child Care at Laxminagar,

Godavarikhani. He admitted as in-patient on 15.06.2011 and

discharged on 29.06.2011. As such, he could not contact his

counsel for filing written statement. On 24.04.2013, he contacted

his counsel and came to know that the suit was decreed ex parte.

Therefore, there is delay of 664 days occurred in filing the

application to set aside the ex parte decree.

4. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter-affidavit resisting the

same and stated that no sufficient is shown in the affidavit filed by

the petitioner as to what prevented him in filing the application,

immediately, soon after his discharge from the hospital on

29.06.2011. On consideration of the material on record, the trial

Court dismissed the application stating that the petitioner failed to

show any sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the same, the present

revision is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

has committed error in not condoning the delay of 664 days in

filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. He further

submits that the petitioner was hospitalized and as such, there was

delay in filing the present application. There is sufficient cause for

not filing the application in time and the delay may be condoned

liberally by allowing the civil revision petition. He has placed

reliance on the decision of Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan v.

M. Krishnamurthy1.

6. In the said judgment, the Apex Court at para Nos.11, 12 and

13 held that " 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

(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123

general welfare that a 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 [AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR

1006] and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality

[(1972) 1 SCC 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749]; 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. It would be a

salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to

laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the

opposite party for his loss."

17. In the instant case, in the affidavit filed in support of the

application, the petitioner stated that he underwent Left Femur

surgery and was admitted in hospital as in-patient from 15.06.2011

at Rahul Hospital in Godavarikhani till 15.06.2011. Subsequently,

when he contacted his counsel, he came to know that he was set

ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 25.07.2011.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not given any reasons as to why he

failed to pursue his case after his discharge from the hospital till

24.04.2013. He further stated that on 24.04.2013, after knowing

that ex parte decree was passed, he visited his counsel and obtained

certified copy of judgment and filed the present application.

18. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the

application to condone the delay of 664 days do not disclose any

valid reasons or sufficient cause to condone the same.

19. It is well settled law that condonation of delay is a matter of

discretion of the Court to be exercised in judicious manner.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say such discretion can be

exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of

delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only

criterion.

20. The explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay is not

satisfactory and it is not sufficient to accept and condone such long

length of delay. Since the petitioner failed to offer proper and valid

explanation with sufficient cause for the delay and the delay set up

is found not satisfactory, the trial Court would not have accepted

the explanation and condoned the delay and in exercise of its

discretion, rightly refused to condone the same.

21. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court

does not suffer from any infirmity warrants interference.

22. In view of the same, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 20.03.2023 Nvl