Heard Sri v. vs N. K. Sarath Saran

This revision petition is hled aggrieved by the order dated O1.04.2023, passed by the I Additional Family Judge, City Civil Oourt at Hyderabad in I.A.No.B3O of 2022 in O.P.No.B40 of 2Ot7

2. Heard Sri V. V. N. K. Sarath Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Baggani Raghava, learnecl counsel for therespondetrt. 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 h1e<l O.P.No.S40 of 2OlT 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 uid.e Transfer petition No. l5O7 of 2015, to the I Additional Famiiy Court, City Civil Court, 2 LNA, J C-R.P.No.585 of 2024 Hyderabad and the same is renumbered as O'P'No'84O of 2017. 'ftre said O.P. was posted for enquiry on 24'07'2079' 10.08.2019, 3O.O8.2019, however, the petitioner was absent as such the same was adjourned from time to time for the purpose of enquiry. On 30'08'2O19' the O P' was adjourned to 09.O9.2019 on costs of Rs'5O0/- to the respondent' On Og.Og.2Olg again the O'P' was adjourned to 11'09'2O19' From 11.09.2019, the o.P' rvas adjourned to 17 'O9 '2oI9 on condition to pay the costs of Rs'1'00O/- to the respondent' Thereafter, the O.P. was posted on 01' 1O'2019' on which date itwasdismissedfordefault,sincethepetitionerfailedto 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 hling the restoration petition'

5.Intheallrdavitfrledinsupportoftheapplicationfor condonation of delay, it is averred that as the petitioner was travellingfromChennaitoHyderabadforeveryappearance, gradually, his health got deteriorated and has become diflicult to travel from Chennai to Hyderabad and the petitioner was absent continuously' the O'P' was dismissed for default on O1.1O'2O19; that his counsel did not intimate ,i-- 3 LNA, J C.R P. No,585 of 2024 him about the dismissal of the O.p. and ultimately, in the month of November , 2079, his counsel informed about dismissal ol- 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 ibr next six months, he took care of his father and coulcl not come to Hyderabad io reopen the case. Thereafter, from the month of June, 2020 to December, 2O2O, 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 a.lso ill and he being the onty child of his parents, he had to look after his parents and was unable to travel to Hyderabad; that gradually he was also contactecl with COVID- 19 and u,as admitted in Government Hospital in the month of December, 2021 and the doctors advised complete bed rest till July, 2O2l as he was suffering frorrr COVID_ 19 u.eakness; zifter 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 advjsed him not to travel long distances tili 27 .06.2022 and therefore, could not {lle the restoration petition.

4.,..1 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024

6. The trial Court considering the.reasons as held in the affidavit, dismissed the application uide order dated OL .O4.2O23 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 lO29 days in filing the restoration petition and thus, dismissed the application' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled the present Civil Revision Petition. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tnal 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 th-afthe tria-l Court failed to consider the orders passed by the .--ffiilry 5 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024 Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu W.p.(C)No.3 of 2020, wherein it'"vas directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.O2.2022 sha1l stand excluded for the purposes of Iimitation. l Ie finally submits that the trial Court failed to consider th e same and mechanically dismissed the application, B. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent r.t ouicl submit that the trial Court has rightly dismrssed the application, bv duly taking into considerationthe reasons stated by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to point out any iliegalitv and irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. He riould further submit that except father, mother and the petitioner advised to take bed rest, no material u.as placed on re,-.ord to substantiate the same. Therefore, the trial Court u as justified in dismissing the application and revision is liable to be dismissed and the same is devoid of merlts

9. A perusal of the record would disclose that the said O.P. u.as posred for enquiry and on 24.O2.2O1g, 10.08.2019, 30.08.2019, t'le petitioner was absent as such the same r,r,as adjourned fron time to time for the purpose of enquiry. On 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024 I 3O.08.2O19, the O.P. was adjourned to 09.09.2019 on costs of Rs.50O/- to the respondent. On 09.O9.2019 again the O'P' was adjourned to 11.09.2O19. From 11.09'2019, the O'P' was adjourne d to 17.O9.2019 on condition to pay the costs of Rs.1,O0O/- 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 hled on 27.O8.2O22 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 hled on 27 'O8 '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 specihcally observed that except father, mother and the petitioner was no material was Placed on record to his contentions, more so when there is an hling the restoration inordinate delaY of 1O29 daYs in saying that hospitalized, substantiate application for restoration of O.P. ' / 7 LNA, J C. R.P. No.585 of 2024

11. in Eshcr Bhattacharjee a, Raghunathpur Nq.Jq.r Academg r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the principles to be applied while deciding a condonation of clelav petition as rrn d er: "2 1.From the afore said authorities the pdnciples that can broadly be cr-rlled out are:

2.1 (rJThere should be a liberal, pragmatic, ju stice-orlented, non_ ped€rntic aplrroach wh ile dealing with an applicatior: for cordonation ol delay, for the courts are not sul,posed to legalise injustice but are obliged to rcnrove injustice. (Li) The terms "sufficienI cause', shoul<] be un(lerstood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purp()se regard being had to the fact that these terrns are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact sitL. ation. (iii) Substaltial justice being pararnount and pivotal the technical considerations should nol be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. lLv) No presutnptiott co.n be a.ttq.ched to deliberate cq.usq,iorl ol dels.g but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litig<rnt is to be taken note of. lvlL@ck oJ bona Jid.es irnputable to a pc.rtg seeking condonation of delay is a. sig ai.ficq.nt q.nd releua.nt jfa.ct, (r,i) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to slrlct proof should not affect public justice a1)d c:ruse public mischief because the courts ar c -equired to be vigilant so that in the ultirrrate everrLuate there is no real failure ofjustice. (vii) ?he concept of libera.l approq.ch to encq.psule the concepiion oJ reasotta.bleness qnd it cq.,I',l.ot be alloued q. tot@llg unJettered. Jree plqg. 1s(20 13) t2sc'.c649 8 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2O24 I (viillThere ls a distinction between inordinate d.elag and d. delag of short to the Jormer duration or feut dags, for is dttracted oJ Preiudice doctrine it ntag rtot be latter uthereqs to the the Jirst one attrdcted. That apart, u)a.rra.rtts strtct a.PProach uthereos the second ca.lls for a liberal delinedtion' (\xlThe cotduct, behauior Lnd attitude its in.action - or of a Partg reldting iegligince are releuant factors to be taken is so as inio considera:tion. It is that the courts lttndamerttal princlple are required to weigh the scale of bolance oj justice in resPect of both parties and the iiia principte cdrt tot be giuen a total go bg in the ndme of liberal aPProach' (x\If the exPlandtion offered cortcocted or the grourtds urged in the application o.re fanciful. the courts shoutd r.ot to expose the ot,r.er side bZ Agitant unnecessarilg to Jace such a litigdtiotl' (xi) ft is to be borne in nhld that no Jraud, recourse to the technica.lities o.f lattt dtDdg lmisrepresenta:tio'1. or takiig of linitation. interpold'tion tDith (xii)?he entire gdrttut oJ fact-s are to scttttinized carefullg a44troa.ch should. be based orl- the p-iradigtn of iudicial discretion which is jounded on obiectlue rea-soning anr.d rtot on ind.iuid ual P erc ePtio rr, (xiii)The State or a public body Oran entity representing a collective cause should be given sorne accePtable latitude. To the aforesaid principles we may add 2.2 some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They afe: - (al An applicoltion fo" condonatioi ol delag should be drafted uith cdrefitl concerrl a.nd rr.ot in a ha$ hq.zard trla,ftner harbourlng the courts dre required to the rtotion thdt corr,done dela.g on the bedrock oJ the princiPle that ddjudication of alison rnertts is se,?aia(rl to Jus,tige jiqte,l'satio n sYste'z. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the ., 9 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024 base c,f individual subjective. philosophy which is basically

22.3(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regarc being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory syster--r should be made as that is the " ultimate institL tional motto.

22.4(d)1'he increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non serious matter and, hence, Iackadaisicat properrsity can be exhibited in a non-cha1lan manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." (emphasrs 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 pa_rty and the Court has to adopt :iberal approach while condoning the delay. However, said power has to be exercised on11. where valid reasons arc shown and plau sible explanation is given for condonation of delay and in case of non-satisfactorily expianation, there was deliberation, \vanton delay in prosecuting lls and where reasons are vague, devoid of any merit, the rliscretionary power of the Court in condoning the delay cculd not be exercised. 13. The Hon'lc1e Apex Court tn tlnion of Indla and another a. Jahangir Bgramji Jeejeebhog (D) through his LR (SLp (Civit) No.21O96 of 2otg dated i l I i I I I I I i $ I i I I I TI I Ii i t i I I l I I I 7 10 LNA, J C.R.P.No-585 of 2024 (- O3.O4,2O24), by referring the judgment of the same Court rn E;sha Bhattachariee (supra), held that "delag stnuld not be excused as a matter of generositg ' Rendering substantial justice is not to cause prejudica to the opposite partA". 14. In Basawaraj and another v' Special Land Acquisition Officer2, the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "I1. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but or-rty ", long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona Jides cinnot be imputed to the party concemed' whethlr or not sufhci.ent cause has been furnished' can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlol v ' Shgimlat l(2OO2) | SCC 535 : AIR 2oO2 SC lOol and Rim Nath'iao v. Gobard-han Soo l(2OO2l 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 sc 12011 .)

12. tt is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect i pa-rticular party but it has to be *itt-, ul1 its ngour when the statute so prescribes' "ppfi"a T^he cou.t has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory proviiion is never an evil. A court has no power to lgnore ihat provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation " The statutory provrslon may cause hLdship or inconvenience to a particular party i"i-,tt" court iras no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim d'ura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law"' stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been n"il tft^t, "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 thrt *h.r. a case has been presented in the court f"yot a limitation, the applicant has to explarn the court --- ' zor: (t+) scc gr J j I i I ; I I l i I l 11 LNA, J C. R.P.No.585 of 2024 as to what was the ,,sufficient cause,, which means an aclerluate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitatio.r. L """" a part_v is fourLd to be negligent, or for want of bona hde on iris part in the facts and circumstances ol the case, or fou.ri to havc not actcd diligently or remained inactive, there car-rnot be a justified ground to condone the deiay. No court could bcjustificd in condoning such an inordinate delar by rmposing ar-ry condition whatsoever. The applrcatron is to be decided only within the pal.ameters lard clown by this Court in regard to the condonation of dela',,. In case there was no sufrcient cause to prevent a litig:rr-lt to approach the court on time condoning the dela.,, without any justification, putting ur-r,.. "o.rjitron whal soever, amounts to passing an o.dJr in violatron ol. thc stalutory provisions and it tar-rtamounts to showrng uttet disregard to the Iegislature.,, 15 From a reading of the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the Hor-r'ble Apex Court at paras_ 1 1 and 12 of the judgment interpreted the expression ,,sufficient cause,, and at para- 1 5 sutnmarized the lar,", with regard to the issue of limitation. 1"6. In Postmaster General and others vs, Living Media India Limited and another3, Hon,ble Apex Court having considered ratena ol decisions, including pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and anothera, wherein it was hetd that, t/ OWTI .... The evidence on record suggests neglcct of its ight for long time in preferring appeals. The court cann,lt enquire into belated and stale clairrLs on the '1zotz1 : scc so: " lzoos; rz sc c+s r t2 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024 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 obserwed as under:- "29. Il necds no reslatement at our hands that the object for iixing 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 tegal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the [aws come to the assistance of the vigllant and not of the sleep5' 30. Public interest undoubtedly rs a paramount consideration in exercising the courts' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant sLatutes' Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers tacilitating 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 laq' 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 shoutd not forget the basic fact that what is acqutred 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 public interest Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such detay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. [t serves no public interest "

17. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Dep€rtmentf rep.by Executive Engineer vs' Borse Brothers 13 LNA, J C.R P.No.585 of 2024 Engineers and Contractors Private Limited s , Hon,bie Supreme Court held as under: "63. ...... In a fit case in which a party has otherwise actect. bona fi.de and not in a negligent manner, a short delal beyond such period can, in the discretion of the courr, 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 rnay 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 t hat his father, mother and himself were hospitalized and since he is the only child of his parents, he c ! was taking care of them, and further, he was a.dvised 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 ald plausibie explanation for the delay in fiiing the application and there are clear latches and default on the part of the petitioner. The reasons set out by the petitioner does not inspire confidence of this Court, in light of thc ,a.bove discussion, this Court does not see any ' lzozry o scc +eo t4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.585 of 2024 reason or ground to interfere r'vith the order passed by the trial Court.

20. In the light of the above discussion-, the Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly dismissed' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed. \ To, SD/-A. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR SS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER '1. The I Additional Family Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri V.V.N.K.Sarath Saran, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri Baggani Raghava, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies (k NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:11t0612025 /'. - -,,i ,, " ..'-J. ' 2 2 srP 2U5 * ,a) .St,,' : r 1 ORDER CRP.No.585 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRP (n- &t { j)