Telangana High Court

Smt. Esam Bhadramma vs Smt. Yendrapalli Thulisamma on 29 March, 2023

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2829 of 2022


ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/defendant, challenging

the order, dated 26.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of

2022 in O.S.No.363 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri

Kothagudem, whereby, the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the

petitioner/defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,

seeking to condone the delay of 780 days in preferring the subject

appeal, was dismissed.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao,

learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, Sri Madiraju Prabhakar

Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that

the delay occurred in preferring the subject appeal was neither

intentional nor wanton, but for the ill-health of the

petitioner/defendant and COVID-19 pandemic prevailing then. The

Court below erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. The

subject suit, which was assailed in the subject appeal, was for 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022

recovery of money, which was decreed on 15.07.2019. The Hon'ble

Apex Court, in Sumoto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, excluded the

period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of delay in

view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the petitioner/defendant

was suffering from ill-health and she took treatment at Singareni

Collieries Company Limited hospital and other private hospitals.

Further, she is an uneducated woman. She came to know about the

decree and judgment passed against her through her employer,

when she received salary attachment warrant pertaining to her.

Later she filed a copy application on 03.08.2021 which was complied

with by the Court below on 06.09.2021 and thereafter, she

approached her counsel for filing the subject appeal. The

petitioner/defendant has got good grounds for success in the appeal.

The Court below failed to take into consideration the above aspects

and erroneously dismissed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022. It is settled

law that it is always better to decide the matter on merits rather than

on technicalities. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the

rights of the parties. They are designed with an objective that

parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their

rights. Further, while considering the application filed under Section 5

of the Limitation Act, the Court should take liberal pragmatic, justice

oriented and a non-pedantic view. In the affidavit filed in support of

the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, the petitioner/defendant has clearly 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022

explained the circumstances under which she could not file the

appeal in time, but the Court below erroneously held that there was

no convincing material in filing the appeal with delay and that it is

not fit to consider the subject application. No prudent person would

afford to allow limitation for filing the application to expire, when

he/she got a good case in his/her favour. Considering the

circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have condoned

the delay of 780 days and ultimately prayed to allow the Civil

Revision Petition as prayed for.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff supported the impugned order and would submit

that the petitioner/defendant failed to adduce her evidence before

the Court below on three occasions and as such evidence on her

behalf was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on

14.11.2018. Then, the petitioner/defendant filed her affidavit in lieu

of examination-in-chief on 30.01.2019 along with an application to

reopen the suit by adducing defendant's side evidence. Accordingly,

the Court below granted time on 29.04.2019, on condition that the

petitioner/defendant should be ready for giving her evidence on the

next day and posted the matter to 11.06.2019. Even on that day,

the petitioner/defendant was absent. Though sufficient time was

granted, the petitioner/defendant did not turn up to give evidence.

                                        4                   Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                            CRP No.2829 of 2022

The counsel for the petitioner/defendant also did not turn up to argue

the case. Under these circumstances, the Court below decreed the

suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 15.07.2019. Thereafter,

the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.6 of 2021 for executing the

decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant filed

C.R.P.No.982 of 2021 before this Court. During the course of

arguments in the said Civil Revision Petition, learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendant has not raised any ground nor placed any

material in support of his case and hence, this Court dismissed the

said Civil Revision Petition vide order, dated 21.10.2021. The

petitioner/defendant filed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 suppressing

all these facts. The petitioner/defendant has no case at all and she is

adopting dilatory tactics under the guise of ill-health and COVID-19

pandemic due to which, the respondent/plaintiff is not able to

execute the decree passed in her favour. No reasonable cause has

been shown by the petitioner/defendant in filing the subject I.A.No.1

of 2022 with a huge delay of 780 days. There are no circumstances

to interfere with the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to

dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for

determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:

Whether the impugned order, dated 26.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in O.S.No.363 of 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022

2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is liable to be set aside?

POINT:

6. Law on the aspect of condonation of delay is well settled. This

Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court have been repeatedly pointing out

that Courts must adopt liberal approach in the matters of

condonation of delay, where there are justifiable grounds. If the

reasons for the delay are bona fide and the applicant does not derive

any benefit because of the delay, the Courts must condone the delay

by adopting liberal approach. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to

benefit by lodging an appeal/application with delay. Refusing to

condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown

out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When

substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against

each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred,

so that the other side cannot claim to have vested right in the

injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. There is no

presumption that delay has occasioned deliberately or on account of

culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides, unless proven

otherwise. It must be born in mind that judiciary is respected not for

its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds, but because it is

capable of removing injustice, which it is expected to do so. Hence, 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022

the Courts must adopt a justice-oriented and a non-pedantic

approach, when there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

7. In the instant case, undoubtedly, there is a long delay of 780

days. The Court below while dismissing the subject I.A.No.1 of

2022, held that the petitioner/defendant did not place any convincing

material to condone the delay and as such, it is not a fit case to

consider subject I.A.No.1 of 2022, more particularly, when the said

application was filed at a belated stage i.e. after issuance of warrant

of attachment of salary of the petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, the

subject suit was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for an

amount of Rs.1,72,034/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the

date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6%

per annum from the date of decree till realization on principle

amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner/defendant contends that

she was suffering from ill-health and in the meantime, COVID-19

pandemic started and as such, she could not approach her counsel

for filing the appeal. There is record to show that the

petitioner/defendant was suffering from ill-health and she was

admitted at Sri Laxmi Gayathri Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad

on 28.12.2020 and was discharged on 30.12.2020, on the reference

of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Singareni Collieries Limited,

Bhoopalapally. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumoto Writ 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP No.2829 of 2022

Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 held that there is no requirement of filing

an application seeking condonation of delay/showing sufficient cause

for non-filing the suit/proceeding during the period from 15.03.2020

to 28.02.2022. Citing the said decision, learned counsel for the

petitioner/defendant argued that the delay in filing the subject

appeal would be minimal and not (780) days. Further, if the delay is

condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff

and on the other hand it would enable both the parties to have their

dispute decided on merits. Considering the issues that are required

to be addressed in the subject appeal and the fact and that

technicalities should not come in the way of rendering justice and

that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted

against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be

preferred, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner/defendant can be

afforded an opportunity, as the explanation offered is a sufficient

cause for condonation of the delay and the length of the delay is no

matter and acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. The

Court below ought not to have adopted a hypertechnical view in

considering the subject appeal I.A.No.1 of 2022. In the considered

view of this Court, the facts and circumstances of the case afford

sufficient grounds to exercise the discretion in favour of the

petitioner/defendant. Viewed thus, I deem it appropriate to condone

the delay of 780 days in filing the subject appeal.

                                    8                     Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                          CRP No.2829 of 2022

8. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the Court below is

not justified in dismissing the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 and therefore,

the order under challenge warrants interference of this Court.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and order,

dated 26.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in A.S.No. of 2022 in

O.S.No.363 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Bhadradri

Kothagudem is set aside. Consequently, the subject I.A.No.1 of

2022 stands allowed by condoning the delay of 780 days caused in

filing the said application. The Court below shall register the appeal,

if it is otherwise in order and proceed further, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision

Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.