Telangana High Court
Perla Komuraiah Died Per Lrs. vs Sadiram Mariyamma, Died Per Lrs on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1010 OF 2024
ORDER:
The order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.414 of 2024 in
I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.114 of 2022 on the file of the Principal
District Judge at Hanumakonda, is under challenge in this Revision
Petition.
2. Heard Sri T.Damodar, learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein
are the defendants in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience,
hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. By the impugned order, the application in I.A.No.414 of 2024 filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of
2038 days in filing an application to restore I.A.No.95 of 2018 was
allowed by the trial Court subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- by
defendant Nos.2 to 8 to plaintiffs and Rs.1,000/- to defendant Nos.10
to 12.
5. Brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the present Civil
Revision Petition are that plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title
LNA, J
and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit
schedule property; that on 04.10.2017, P.W-1 was examined and on
24.10.2017, the matter was coming up for cross-examination of P.W-1,
but as defendant No.2 to 9 were not present till the rising of the Court on
that day i.e., till 4.30 pm., the trial Court observed that the said
defendants waived their right to cross-examine P.W-1. Later, the
defendants filed I.A.No.95 of 2018 to recall P.W-1 for cross-examination,
but, the said application was dismissed for default on 28.06.2018. The
defendants filed an application to restore I.A.No.95 of 2018 along with an
application in I.A.No.414 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay in filing
the restoration application. The said application filed to condone the
delay was allowed subject to payment of costs, as stated supra.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of application in I.A.No.414 of
2024, defendant No.3 averred that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation
and further, as he was ill and underwent surgery, he was unable to contact
his Advocate and instruct him to conduct the case and as such, the delay
occurred, which is neither willful nor intentional. He further averred that
if the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine P.W-1, they would
be put to irreparable loss and great hardship.
7. The plaintiffs filed counter opposing the said application and
contended that the averment of defendant No.3 that he is unwell is false
LNA, J
and even otherwise, there is no explanation as to why the other
defendants have not taken any steps. It is further contended that even
after Covid-19 pandemic period, delay of two years occurred, for which
there is no sufficient explanation by the defendants and hence, the
application is liable to be dismissed.
8. The trial Court, on due consideration of contentions of both the
parties, allowed the application subject to payment of costs as stated
supra. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed.
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended
that the application does not disclose any plausible reasons for
condonation of delay, and defendant No.3 except stating that he
underwent surgery, did not file any medical certificate to that effect and
at least did not give any details of the said surgery viz., the name of
surgery, the hospital where he underwent operation, etc. He further
contended that there was delay of 18 months prior to outbreak of Covid-
19 pandemic and delay of two years even after end of Covid-19 pandemic
period, but the defendants did not give any sufficient reasons for
condonation of the said delay. He further submitted that in the absence of
proper explanation for the delay, the same cannot be condoned. In
support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
LNA, J
Apex Court in P.K.Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala 1. Learned counsel
contended that in the light of the said judgment, the impugned order
passed by the trial Court is grossly erroneous and is unsustainable and
prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended
that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial
Court has rightly observed that if the application is not allowed, it
amounts to preventing defendant Nos.3 to 8 from contesting the suit,
which would cause loss and prejudice to them and therefore, the trial
Court has rightly allowed the application by the impugned order, which
calls for no interference by this Court.
11. The short issue that falls for consideration in this Revision Petition
is whether the impugned order of the trial Court is justifiable and legal in
the face of the reasons offered by the defendants for condonation of
delay.
12. This Court has thoroughly perused the entire record, viz., the
application in I.A.No.414 of 2024 filed by the defendants, the counter
filed by the plaintiffs, etc., before the trial Court.
13. In the affidavit filed in support of application in I.A.No.414 of
2024, defendant No.3 stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and
further, as he underwent surgery, he was unable to contact and instruct his
1997 Lawsuit(SC) 1200
LNA, J
Advocate and as such, delay in filing an application to restore I.A.No.95
of 2018 occurred. Except the vague statement of defendant No.3 that he
underwent surgery, he failed to produce any Medical Certificate to that
effect and even did not state the details of the same, i.e., name of the
surgery, the hospital where he was operated and treated, the period of
treatment, etc. In the absence of any such details, the stand of defendants
that due to ill-health of defendant No.3, the delay occurred cannot be
believed and does not inspire confidence in this Court. Even otherwise,
there is no whisper as to why the other defendants have not taken any
steps for restoring I.A.No.95 of 2018. This shows that the defendants are
not diligent and in fact, negligent in prosecuting the suit, which cannot be
appreciated.
14. Further, in the application, the defendants stated that Covid-19
pandemic situation is one of the reasons for delay. But, it is apt to note
that outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic in India was in January, 2020 and
thus, even before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, delay of 18 months
i.e., one year six months occurred and further, after end of Covid-19
pandemic, all the institutions, etc., have resumed to their normal functions
and the human life was restored to its original phase and as rightly
contended by the plaintiffs, the delay of two years occurred for which
LNA, J
defendants did not give any plausible reason. The defendants have failed
to give any plausible or cogent reasons for condoning the aforesaid delay.
15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that substantial rights
accrued to the plaintiffs cannot be negatived, more so, when there are
clear latches and default on the part of defendants.
16. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer2,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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] .)
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
2013 (14) SCC 81
LNA, J
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."
17. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others 3, wherein while a similar
issue as to condonation of delay fell for consideration, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has broadly culled out certain principles and that the
Clauses relevant to the present case, i.e., Clauses-21.9 and 22.4 are
reproduced as hereunder:-
"21.9The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its
inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into
consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts
are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of
both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in
the name of liberal approach.
22.4 The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious
matter and hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a
nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within
legal parameters."
18. In view of the above discussion and the legal position, in
considered opinion of this Court in the absence of any plausible
explanation offered by the defendants for condonation of huge inordinate
(2013) 12 SCC 649
LNA, J
delay of 2038 days in filing the application to restore I.A.No.95 of 2018,
the trial Court has not acted judiciously and erred in allowing the said
application on payment of costs.
19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial
Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:27.02.2025
dr
