Telangana High Court
M/S Arrow Cables Ltd vs Kartik Vyas on 10 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1180 of 2024
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Maganti Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order
dated 22.01.2024 by which the application preferred by the
respondent No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, seeking condonation of the delay in setting aside the
ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019, has been
allowed.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated
are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of an
amount of Rs.19,51,54,456/-. In the aforesaid suit, an ex
parte decree was passed on 13.12.2019.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an application
on 07.01.2022 seeking to condone the delay of 725 days in
filing the application for setting aside the ex parte
judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019. The aforesaid
application has been allowed by the trial court vide order
dated 22.01.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the
attention of this Court to the averments made in the
interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, has
submitted that the respondent No.1 has failed to explain
the delay caused in filing the aforesaid application and has
not even stated as to when he derived the knowledge about
the ex parte judgment and decree. It is, therefore,
submitted that the trial court grossly erred in allowing the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the
record.
8. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is well delineated and the Supreme
Court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel 1 has held
that the High Court cannot act as a Court of appeal and
reappreciate and reweigh the evidence and should not
substitute its opinion. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid
decision is extracted below for the facility of reference:
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are
clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash
Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for
several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the
limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a
court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the
evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to
correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the
final finding is justified or can be supported. The High
Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and
conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.
[Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar,
(2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The
jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional
jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or
flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of
(2022) 4 SCC 181
law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised
sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no
evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse
that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is
axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be
exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
9. In the instant case, it has been pleaded by the
respondent No.1 that he has no knowledge about the filing
of the suit and thereafter he was served with the summons
in the execution petition. However, he could not contact
the counsel, as during the coronavirus pandemic his friend
was diagnosed with COVID and he was in primary contact
and has quarantined himself. It has further been stated
that the respondent No.1 learnt about the ex parte
judgment and decree when he received the notice of
execution proceeding.
10. It is trite law that the expression "sufficient cause"
should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the
cause of justice. Even otherwise, the issue relating to
condonation of delay is an issue within the discretion of
the Court. The discretion to condone the delay has neither
been exercised arbitrarily nor capriciously. The trial court
has assigned cogent reasons in paragraphs 13 to 15 of its
order and has condoned the delay.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for
interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
12. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
10.04.2024
vs/myk
