The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Defendants No. I & 2 Kappala Rlmesh, S/o. Muthilingam, Aged about 42 years, Occ. private Emptoyee, R/o.Vootkur Vitrase,"Shatig;;;r;;;Mr;A;i Natgonda District ...RespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support oltl".p"ltlol ir,JHtgn Court may b;;i";";'t.;ry of all further-proceedings in E.p.No,B5/20t g in 5.s.trto .46 of 201.1 on the file of Honourable Sen_ior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, pending disposal of the CRp. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri D y. L. N. Charyulu Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Karunakar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE ISRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET"TY CIVI]. REVISION PETITION NO'6O7 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Rer i;ion Petition is filed assailing the orcler dated 7L 70.2023 in I.,\'No 530 of 2023 in O S No'46 of 201L passed by the' Senior Civit Judge at |jalgonda'

2.HeardSriD\'NLN'Charyulu'learnedcounselforpetitioners and Sri Karunakar B,1,1dy, iearned counsel for respondent' 3. The petitirlnt:rs herein are the defendants and responden.: hel'ein is the plaintiff b<:fore :he trial Court'

4. Brief facts' relt:rrant for adiudication of the Present Civil l:levision Petition are thrt r':spondent filed a suit in O S'No 46 o[ 1i1011 for recoverv of monev summons was sewed on the defendants and they have engaged an aclvocate Sri T'Kiran Kumar to defend l:he suit' however, the [)etitic'ners were set ex parte for non filing ol written statement. Sub;equently, the trial Court on due considerat.ic'n ol' the material and e.ride rce placed on record, Passed ex parte jud grrrent and decree on 21.0i.2071 '[he deferrctants filed an application under Ordel IX Rule 13 of 5. CPC to set asiide tIrc ex parte judgment and decree a1ol18 with an application undel ll':.ction 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay ..- CR" No.607 ol202a re\ LNA,J. 2 of 4366 days under section zrizie I.A.No.53 o of 2023 in filing appiicarion under Order IX Rule 13 of CpC. In the said application, defendants averred that they came to knovv about passing of ex partejudgment and decree on 21.07.2011 onJy when they received notices in E.p.No.6 of 2072 flled by the respondent for execution of decree; that they approached their counsel Sri G.Kishore Kumar and he informed the defendants that E.p. as well as E.A. were dismissed by an order dated 10.05.2015 and there are no proceedings pending against the defendants; that in the first week of May, 2023, petitioners .came to know about filing of another E.p.No.g5 of 201.9 whcn some people came to their house to serve notices. It is further contended that respondent is trying to execute te ex parte decree, which was obtained by playing fraud and immediatelp the petitioners made an application for getting certified copies of documents in o.s.No.46 oI 2011and the same were furnished to them on 12.05.2023 and on advice from their couruel, they filed the instant application for condonation of delay of 4336 days in filing application under order IX Rule 13 of CpC for setting aside the er parte jtdgment and decree.

6. Respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the application and contended that application is not maintainable as letitioners failed to explain sufficient cause for inorcrinate deiay and // LNI 'J' ct:P 'o 6A1 aI20)1 3 further there is gro:;s negligence on the part of the petitioners in filing application. It i; fulther contended that suit is of the y eat 207-l and on receipt of summons, Petitioners had engaged a counsel' []ri T Kiran Kumar, hower',-r, the petitioners were set ex parte as they fail(lrd to file their writter-i sl.aterlent and therefore, the petitioners cannot say that they were ignorant of court proceedings and since the delay is not properly explainecl, :he application is liable to be dismissed

7. The trial Corr:t, considering the contentions of both thr') Parties/ dismissecl the ap'plicati on ttide order dated 1'7'10 202i\ with an observation that th,: reasons assigned by the petitioners for cor'donation of delay do not fit v,'ithin the expression sufficient cause and [here was an inordinate dela f in prosecuting the lls by wanton an<l r'teliberate negligence on the P'rrt of the Petitioners and therefore' the s;artle cannot be concionecl

8. Learned cotttrsel for petitioners had contended that b'ial Court failed to consi,ler the fact that the petitioners wele not awale of passing of ex partejudlynent and decree till they received notices in E.t']' filed by theresponclent.IlisfurthercontendedthattrialCourt:;houldhave taken a Iibera appr-oach while condoning the delay and oug.lt to have condoned the detal by imposing suitable costs, therefore., the rmptrgned order is errolreous and thus, unsustainable and the revis;io'r Ptp"\. 1 4 I,NA,J, CR? No.607 ol2021 deserves to be allowed. In support of the contentiorL iearned counsel for petitioners placed reriance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Civil Revision No.152 of 2022, dated22.02.2022. g. Per contra, Iearned counsel for respondent had contended-that trial Court has rightly decrined to condone inordinate delay of 4366 days in filing appiication to set aside the ex partejudgment and decree since petitioners failed to offer cogent, plausible reasons for such inordinate delay. He further contended that even the reasons set out by the petitioners hre facfuary incorrect since they were aware of f,ing of a suit and they have also engaged an advocate on their behalf to defend the suit and they were set ex parte for non_filing of written statement and therefore, the contentions that they came to know about passing of ex parte judgment and decree only after receipt of notices in E.p., is incorrect' He finally contended that there are no merits in the revision petition and th'e same is liable to be dismissed. 10' To substantiate his contention, rearned counser for respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Hon,ble Apex Court in l_lnion of India and another u. lahangir Byramji leejeebhoy (D) through his LR (SLp (Ciail) No.21096 of 2019 dated. 03.04.2024), wherein the Hon,ble Apex Courr by referring the judgment of the same Court in Eshn Bhattacharjee a. Mnnaging Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others K2013) 12 I,NA,J, C.RP t o.6a7.[2024 SCC 6491, held that ' tlelay should not be excused as a matter ol gr nerosity ' 5 RenderingsubsttlntiallttsticeisnottoCauseprejudicetotheoppositeltarty,,,

11. Perusal of the record would clisclose that respondent filrd a suit for recovery o[ tnoncv lide O S'No 4 6 of 2071 ancl on re ceipt o[ summons, petitione rs engaged an Advocate' however' theY wtrre set ex parte fornon-filing olr rvritten statement and later' ex Pafte judgnrent and decree was pasr;ed b'i the trial Court ttide ludgment dated 2L'07 '2011" -12. Petitioners heve also received notices in E'P'N o 6 of 11012 and they have eng.'gecl ir counsei, however, they failed to take st€'PS to set €. the petitioners have filed the present application aside er parte ciecr€ only after l ecsipt 'r[ uotice in subsequent E'P No'85 of 2']19 with jnordinate clelav o[ 4366 d,ays in filing sel ex parte decree l herefore' there are clear latches and default on the part of petitioners in pursuing the matter

13. The fact; in the judgment of Madras High Cour:t (suprer) and the facts in the presetrt case are completely different and' thert:fore' the same has no appli(ation to the present case ln fact, in the said iudgment of Madras Hi11h Court, it was observed that sufficient cause tnust be a cause rarhich .s bevond control of the party invokilg the aid of the section; that for s,rmebody else's negligence or fault' the party or the substantial jus iice should not be allowed to suffer; wher e neither LNA J, CRP No 607 of 202J 1 6 negligence nor want of bona fide is imputable to the party for the delay in filing, it would constihrte sufficient cause. However, in the present case/ as mentioned supra, there are clear latches and default on the part of petitioners.

14. In Basawaraj and another v, Special Land Acquisition OfMcerr, 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 oJ bona fi.des cannot be imputed to the partA concemed, 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 Mad_anlat v. Shgamlal [(2002) I SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100] and RrLm Nath Saov. Gobardhan Sao [eaO2l3 SCC t9S : AIR 2OO2 SC 12O1] .)

12. lt 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 maxirn 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. ' zor: lralscc sr LNA.J, C,?P1o607a.2024 7

15. The law or) the issue can be summarised to the effect ''ha t whereacasel..asbeenpresentedinthecourtbeyondlimitatior., the app lcanl has to explain the court as to whai was th'3 "sufficiertt carse" qhrch means an adequate and enough reasol] which p -evcnt'rd him to approach the court within limitatiorl lrl case a party Ls found to be negligent' or for want of bona fide o'r his part in tlx: facts and circumstances of the case' or forlnd 1o have no: actetl diligently or remained inactive' there cannot be a justifled grourd to condone the delay No court could be justihtrd incondoningsiuchaninordinatedelaybyimposinganycondition 'Ihe application is to be decided only within tlLe whatso€ver. parame.ers laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delav. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigarlt to appr)ach lile court on time condoning the delay withoul arly justific€tion, putting an]' condition whatsoever' amounts to passing an lrdcr- in violation o[ rhe statutory provisions and it tantam )untti to showing utter disregard to the legislatr-rre " In Post,araster General and others vs Living Media India i5. Limited and lrnother2, Hon'ble Apex Court having considerr':d catena Jalam Patil (dead) bY LRs' Vs' of decisions, including Pundlik Medium Project and anothe13' Executive Engineer, Jalgaon wherein it wasr held that, "17....... 'li1e €vidence on record suggests negtect of its own r:igllt for long trme ir prcferring appeals The court cannot enquire into belatedandS:€rleClarmsonthegroundofequity'Delayrlefeal-s equity. 'lhe ccrrrt hclps those who are vigilant and "do rLot slurnbr:r over theil rightsi" andobsen,ed.thaltakingverylenientviewincondoningttredelay, particularl y, on the part of the Government arld Ciovernment Undertaking, would not be proper and observed as under:- 2072 2008 ) 3 SCC s63 t1s. oot Y] LNA,J, CR? No 607 of202a 8 "29. It needs no restatement rime-limit for ritigarion," r""*t :;:il::::I ffit:.l,fi ,T: 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 prompdy. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy. 30. Pubric interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant shtutes. 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 benehciary 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 gurlty 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 hled 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 pubtic interest. Setfled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate deiay withor:t there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of pubtic reyenue. [t serves no pubtic interest.,

76. In Government of Maharashtra (Vlater Resources Departmentf rep.by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors private Limiteda, Hon,bie Supreme Court held as under: In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona ftde \, and not in a negtigent manner, a short delay beyond such period n lzozr; 6 scc aeo LIi A,J, ct? . 0.6A1if2024 9 can, in the clisc -r'tron of the court' be condoned' always bearing rr.l mindthattheothcrsideofthepictureiSthattheoppositepartyma,/ have acquir-ed bcth in equity and justice' what may now be lost by the first pa-ty's r'action' negligence or laches "

77. In view oi the above discussion and legal position, in considered Co'-rrt, the reasons offered by the petitio ners for opinion of thi s delav does not inspire the conhdent)e of th is Court condonation ol since no plausible oxplanation has been offered for huge inordinate delay of 4366 dayr; in fi1ing application and no sufficient cii'use has been shown for s rch delay The Civil Revision Petition lails and accordingly dismisr;ecl. There shall be no order as to c:osts' Pending mis<:ellaneous applications if any shall stand c"oseci' SDi. T TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// A! \ $ecrroru oFFrcER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. 2. One CC to Sri D Y. L. N. Charyulu, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri l(arunakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Cc,pies ln- DUPSL 1EL o , cs(P .+.s \ + :,ll '.'/ / a, \ \-:, l.-: r., "1.rtr * I .: HIGH COURT DATED:Z71O21202,5 ORDER CRP.No.607 of 2tt24 DISMISSING THE: C.F'..P. (+ t{w, >t