Pulla Beerappa, vs Gattupally Manikyam,
2025 Latest Caselaw 2327 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pulla Beerappa, vs Gattupally Manikyam, on 19 February, 2025

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1449 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.03.2024 in I.A.No.137 of 2022 in O.S.No.52 of 2014 passed by the IX

Additional District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Sri P.Sriharinath, learned counsel for petitioner. No

representation on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is

the plaintiff before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the

parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision

Petition are that plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale dated 05.02.2014 in respect of agricultural land

admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.616/UU, Chilkuru village of

Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. Summons was served on the

defendant and he entered appearance and the matter was posted on

17.06.2016 for written statement, however, neither written statement

was filed nor there was representation on behalf of the defendant on

that day and, therefore, the trial Court set the defendant ex parte.

Subsequently, the trial Court on due consideration of the material and

evidence placed on record, passed ex parte judgment and decree on

15.09.2017.

5. The defendant filed an application vide I.A.No.137 of 2022 under

Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree

along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to

condone the delay of 442 days in filing application under Order IX Rule

13 of CPC. In the said application, defendant averred that he received

summons and engaged a counsel to defend his case, however, on

17.06.2016 as written statement was not filed nor there was

representation on his behalf, the trial Court was pleased to set the

defendant ex parte and thereafter, passed ex parte judgment and decree

on 15.09.2017. It is averred that his wife fell ill-health with jaundice

from 06.06.2016 to 26.12.2018 and he was attending to his wife as she

was taking ayurvedic treatment for jaundice and as such, he could not

attend the Court and also could not contact his counsel for filing written

statement. It is further averred that after recovery of his wife from ill-

health, he enquired with his counsel and came to know that an ex parte

judgment and decree was passed on 15.09.2017 and he met the plaintiff

and questioned as to why he did not press the suit as per their

understanding and promise. However, plaintiff did not give any

answer and, therefore, he is constrained to approach the trial Court to

set aside the ex parte decree along with the application under Section 5

of Limitation Act for condonation of 442 days in filing the application

under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

6. Plaintiff filed counter resisting the application and contended that

the application is devoid of any merit and same has been filed basing on

concocted story. It is further contended that despite having knowledge

about the ex parte order dated 17.06.2016, defendant did not take

immediate steps to file application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set

aside the ex parte order and that the application filed by the defendant is

devoid of any merit and no proper reasons are assigned for

condonation of abnormal delay of 442 days in filing the application

under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

7. The trial Court on due consideration of contentions of the

defendant in the application as well as contentions raised in the counter

filed by the plaintiff opposing the application for condonation of delay,

had dismissed the application vide order dated 26.03.2024. The trial

Court observed that though the defendant filed application along with

the written statement on 02.01.2019, defendant failed to submit any

document evidencing ill-health of his wife as well as medical

prescriptions or any other document in support of his contention.

8. Learned counsel for defendant contended that due to ill-health of

his wife as she was taking Ayurvedic treatment, the defendant could

not contact his counsel and file the written statement and defend the

suit. It is further contended that since the wife of the defendant is

taking ayurvedic treatment for jaundice, no medical report was

produced before the trial Court. This fact was not properly appreciated

by the trial Court and dismissed the application only on the ground that

no documents are filed in proof of treatment of wife of defendant. It is

further contended that to show his bona fide, the defendant along with

the application has also filed written statement and, therefore, a lenient

view may be taken for delay of 442 days since the rights of defendant in

immovable property would be affected if the delay is not condoned.

9. Perusal of the record would disclose that defendant was set

ex parte for non-filing of written statement on 17.06.2016 and

defendant did not take any step immediately to set aside the ex parte

order, which clearly shows that defendant was not diligent in

defending the suit. Admittedly, defendant filed application under

Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to set ex parte judgment and decree along

with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the

delay of 442 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte

judgment and decree. Further, defendant failed to place any material

in proof of ill-health of his wife and also treatment taken by her. The

trial Court has categorically observed that no material is placed

evidencing ill-health of his wife and also treatment taken by her and

thus, the trial Court has rightly refused to condone the delay of 442

days since the defendant failed to explain abnormal delay of 442 days.

It is also relevant to note that suit is filed for specific performance of

agreement of sale and it was decreed on15.09.2017. Therefore, this

Court is also conscious of the fact that substantial rights have been

accrued to the plaintiff, which cannot be negatived, more so, when

there are clear latches and default on the part of defendant. Further,

the defendant failed to explain abnormal delay of 442 days by offering

cogent, plausible reasons in filing application under Order IX Rule 13

of CPC.

10. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition

Officer 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201] .)

12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

xxx

15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the

2013 (14) SCC 81

"sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."

11. In Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media India

Limited and another 2, Hon'ble Apex Court having considered catena

of decisions, including Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. Vs.

Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another 3,

wherein it was held that,

"17....... The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and "do not slumber over their rights".

and observed that taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, would not be proper and observed as under:-

"29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any

(2012) 3 SCC 563

(2008) 17 SC 448

fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest."

12. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources

Department) rep.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers

Engineers and Contractors Private Limited 4, Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as under:

"63. ...... In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches."

13. In view of the above discussion and legal position, in considered

opinion of this Court, the reasons offered by the appellant for

condonation of delay does not inspire the confidence of this Court

since no plausible explanation has been offered for huge inordinate

delay of 442 days in filing application and no sufficient cause has

been shown for such delay, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

14. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 19.02.2025 kkm

(2021) 6 SCC 460