Telangana High Court

Jai Balaji vs Neelam on 11 June, 2025

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.585 of 2024

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 01.04.2023, passed by the I Additional Family Judge,

City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.830 of 2022 in

O.P.No.840 of 2017.

2. Heard Sri V. V. N. K. Sarath Saran, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri Baggani Raghava, learned counsel for

therespondent. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein is the husband, the respondent

herein is the wife.

4. The brief facts that are relevant for adjudication of

present revision petition are that originally, the petitioner-

husband filed O.P.No.840 of 2017 seeking nullity of marriage

between him and the respondent before the sub-ordinate

Judge at Poonamalee Court at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The

said O.P.was transferred pursuant to the orders passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Transfer Petition No.1507 of

2015, to the I Additional Family Court, City Civil Court,

LNA, J

Hyderabad and the same is renumbered as O.P.No.840 of

2017. The said O.P. was posted for enquiry on 24.07.2019,

10.08.2019, 30.08.2019, however, the petitioner was absent

as such the same was adjourned from time to time for the

purpose of enquiry. On 30.08.2019, the O.P. was adjourned

to 09.09.2019 on costs of Rs.500/- to the respondent. On

09.09.2019 again the O.P. was adjourned to 11.09.2019.

From 11.09.2019, the O.P. was adjourned to 17.09.2019 on

condition to pay the costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.

Thereafter, the O.P. was posted on 01.10.2019, on which date

it was dismissed for default, since the petitioner failed to

appear for enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated

01.10.2019 along with an application for condonation of

delay of 1029 days in filing the restoration petition.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for

condonation of delay, it is averred that as the petitioner was

travelling from Chennai to Hyderabad for every appearance,

gradually, his health got deteriorated and has become

difficult to travel from Chennai to Hyderabad and the

petitioner was absent continuously, the O.P. was dismissed

for default on 01.10.2019; that his counsel did not intimate

LNA, J

him about the dismissal of the O.P. and ultimately, in the

month of November, 2019, his counsel informed about

dismissal of O.P. and he was about to travel to Hyderabad to

file restoration petition, however, his father's health got

deteriorated and he was advised to full bed rest and for next

six months, he took care of his father and could not come to

Hyderabad to reopen the case. Thereafter, from the month of

June, 2020 to December, 2020, the mother of the petitioner

suffered from COVID-19 and post COVID-19 complications

due to which she was advised complete bed rest and since his

father was also ill and he being the only child of his parents,

he had to look after his parents and was unable to travel to

Hyderabad; that gradually he was also contacted with

COVID-19 and was admitted in Government Hospital in the

month of December, 2021 and the doctors advised complete

bed rest till July, 2021 as he was suffering from COVID-19

weakness; after his discharge, his health issues started

increasing and upon diagnosis, it revealed several form of

Reflux Esophagitis and he was advised complete bed rest and

further advised him not to travel long distances till

27.06.2022 and therefore, could not file the restoration

petition.

LNA, J

6. The trial Court considering the reasons as held in the

affidavit, dismissed the application vide order dated

01.04.2023 with an observation that the petitioner did not

placed any material in support of his contentions that both

his father and mother and the petitioner were suffering from

ill-health and there were hospitalized and that the doctors

advised them to take bed rest. The trial Court further

observed that the petitioner failed to explain the delay and

sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1029 days in filing

the restoration petition and thus, dismissed the application.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Civil

Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the trial Court has failed to consider the medical conditions of

father, mother and the petitioner and because of compelling

situations, the petitioner could not travel from Chennai to

Hyderabad to file application for restoration and thus, the

trial Court committed error in dismissing the application and

he would further submit that the trial Court erred in taking

approach in considering the application for condonation of

delay, instead of taking liberal view. He would further submit

that the trial Court failed to consider the orders passed by the

LNA, J

Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C)No.3 of 2020,

wherein it was directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till

28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of

limitation. He finally submits that the trial Court failed to

consider the same and mechanically dismissed the

application.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the

application, by duly taking into considerationthe reasons

stated by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to point out

any illegality and irregularity in the order passed by the trial

Court. He would further submit that except father, mother

and the petitioner advised to take bed rest, no material was

placed on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, the

trial Court was justified in dismissing the application and

revision is liable to be dismissed and the same is devoid of

merits.

9. A perusal of the record would disclose that the said

O.P. was posted for enquiry and on 24.07.2019, 10.08.2019,

30.08.2019, the petitioner was absent as such the same was

adjourned from time to time for the purpose of enquiry. On

LNA, J

30.08.2019, the O.P. was adjourned to 09.09.2019 on costs

of Rs.500/- to the respondent. On 09.09.2019 again the O.P.

was adjourned to 11.09.2019. From 11.09.2019, the O.P.

was adjourned to 17.09.2019 on condition to pay the costs of

Rs.1,000/- to the respondent for enquiry. Thereafter, posted

on 1.10.2019 and on 01.10.2019, the O.P. was dismissed for

default, since the petitioner failed to appear for enquiry. The

condonation petition was filed on 27.08.2022 i.e., after lapse

of more than three years, for condonation of 1029 days delay.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner was aware of the dismissal of

O.P. in the month of November, 2019, however, the

application for restoration was filed on 27.08.2022 along with

an application for condonation of 1029 days in filing the

restoration petition and the only excuse given by the

petitioner was ill-health of his father, mother and the

petitioner himself on account of COVID-19 and its after

affects. The trial Court specifically observed that except

saying that father, mother and the petitioner was

hospitalized, no material was placed on record to

substantiate his contentions, more so when there is an

inordinate delay of 1029 days in filing the restoration

application for restoration of O.P.

LNA, J

11. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar

Academy 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the

principles to be applied while deciding a condonation of delay

petition as under:

"21.From the afore said authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

2.1 (i)There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

(iv)No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v)Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

(2013)12SCC649

LNA, J

(viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

(ix)The conduct, behavior 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.

(x)If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.


          (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no
    one       gets      away      with     fraud,
    misrepresentation      or  interpolation   by

taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

(xii)The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

(xiii)The State or a public body Oran entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

2.2 To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: -

(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of alison merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the

LNA, J

base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

22.3(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

22.4(d)The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

(emphasis supplied)

12. From the above decision, it is clear that the Court is

vested with power to condone the delay in filing an appeal

if sufficient cause is shown by the party and the Court has

to adopt liberal approach while condoning the delay.

However, said power has to be exercised only where valid

reasons are shown and plausible explanation is given for

condonation of delay and in case of non-satisfactorily

explanation, there was deliberation, wanton delay in

prosecuting lis and where reasons are vague, devoid of any

merit, the discretionary power of the Court in condoning

the delay could not be exercised.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and

another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through

his LR (SLP (Civil) No.21096 of 2019 dated

LNA, J

03.04.2024), by referring the judgment of the same Court

in Esha Bhattacharjee (supra), held that "delay should

not be excused as a matter of generosity. Rendering

substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to the opposite

party".

14. In Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2, 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.

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

2013 (14) SCC 81

LNA, J

as to what was the "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."

15. From a reading of the aforesaid observations, it is clear

that the Hon'ble Apex Court at paras-11 and 12 of the

judgment interpreted the expression "sufficient cause" and at

para-15 summarized the law with regard to the issue of

limitation.

16. In Postmaster General and others vs. Living Media

India Limited and another 3 , Hon'ble Apex Court having

considered catena of decisions, including Pundlik Jalam

Patil (dead) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon

Medium Project and another 4, 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

(2012) 3 SCC 563

(2008) 17 SC 448

LNA, J

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 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."

17. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources

Department) rep.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers

LNA, J

Engineers and Contractors Private Limited 5 , 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."

18. In the present case, it is the specific case of the

petitioner that his father, mother and himself were

hospitalized and since he is the only child of his parents, he

was taking care of them, and further, he was advised to take

bed rest and not to travel long distances, therefore, he could

not travel to Hyderabad to file restoration of O.P. However,

the petitioner did not file any material to substantiate his

contentions nor placed any medical on record in support of

his contentions.

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner

failed to show sufficient cause and plausible explanation for

the delay in filing the application and there are clear latches