Telangana High Court

Smt. T. Kalavathi Died Per Lr vs Mr. Nagender on 25 March, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

       THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1343 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-appellants

aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A. No.1216 of 2018 in AS

SR No.24272 of 2017 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Mohammed Ismail Ashfaq, learned counsel

representing Sri R.A. Achutanand, learned counsel on record for the

petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner No.1 filed a suit for specific performance for enforcement of a

contract and a compromise was recorded in the said suit and the suit was

accordingly decreed. In pursuance to the said compromise a sale deed

was executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favor of petitioner No.1 in

respect of the area which was allotted to them in a preliminary decree

passed by the court in O.S. No.1700 of 1994. O.S. No.1700 of 1994

was filed for partition and a preliminary decree was passed on

24.08.2001 allotting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs therein. A final decree

application was also filed by the plaintiffs therein. In E.P. No.34 of

Dr.GRR,J

2009 filed by the petitioners herein in O.S No.392 of 1986 on the file of

VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 filed a claim petition vide EA No.84 of 2013 and the said

claim petition was allowed on 24.03.2017. Aggrieved by allowing EA

No.84 of 2013, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal which was

numbered as AS SR No.24272 of 2017. As there was delay of 230 days

in preferring the appeal, the petitioners filed an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in preferring

the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the learned Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 05.03.2019. Aggrieved by

which, this revision is preferred.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No.1

died and she was represented by petitioner No.2, who was her legal

representative. The petitioner No.2 suffered with severe lower back

pain. He was diagnosed with Lumbar problem and other ailments and

was advised physiotherapy and complete bed rest for six months. As

such, he could not contact his counsel within the period of limitation.

The petitioner had filed the medical certificate issued by the doctor,

there was sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within the

stipulated period, but, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Dr.GRR,J

Hyderabad erroneously dismissed the said application. He further

contended that the word "sufficient cause" had to be interpreted liberally

to do substantial justice to the parties and relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1.

5. No representation by the counsel engaged by the respondents

on 18.03.2025 as well as on the earlier occasion when the matter was

posted on 11.03.2025.

6. Perused the record.

7. As seen from the record, the petitioner No.2 filed an affidavit

in support of the application filed by him in I.A .No.1216 of 2018 for

condonation of delay of 230 days in preferring the appeal against the

judgment and decree in E.A. No.84 of 2013 in E.P. No.34 of 2009 in

O.S. No.392 of 1996 on the file of the VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. He stated that he was suffering with severe lower

back pain and was unable to walk or stand for a prolonged period or sit

and that he underwent necessary tests and was diagnosed with lumbar

problem and other ailments and was advised physiotherapy and

complete bed rest for six months and enclosed the medical certificate

issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon of Gandhi Hospital,

(1998) 7 SCC 123

Dr.GRR,J

Secunderabad. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

observing that the date of issuance of the medical certificate was not

mentioned and the doctor, who issued the certificate, was not examined

and mere filing of the certificate could not be considered as sufficient

reason for condoning the delay of eight months and by placing reliance

on the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent therein that

the petitioner was contesting the other suits and was carrying on

business in the mulgi, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

therein. But, however, no proof was filed by the respondents therein also

that the petitioner was contesting the matter after passing of the order in

EA No.84 of 2013 on 24.03.2017.

8. As seen from the medical certificate issued by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Gandhi Hospital, the petitioner was in a bad state of

health due to Lumbar Disc Prolapse and he was advised bed rest and

physiotherapy for atleast six months with effect from 27.06.2017.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan v. M.

Krishnamurthy, held that:

9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest

Dr.GRR,J

range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on whole untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.

10. The reason for such a different stance is thus:

The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations in not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

11. Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury.

Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal

Dr.GRR,J

remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause"

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].

13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss."

10. Considering the guidelines stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the above case, as the reason for the delay stated by the petitioner

does not appear to be deliberate, but for the reasons stated by the doctor

in his medical certificate and rules of limitation are not meant to destroy

the rights of the parties but only to see that the parties would not resort

Dr.GRR,J

to dilatory tactics in seeking their remedy promptly and by condoning

the delay no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, it is

considered fit to allow the CRP setting aside the impugned order.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting

aside the order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A. No.1216 of 2018 in AS SR

No.24272 of 2017 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,