High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondent: -- The Court macle the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET'TY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1449 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil ll,:r'ision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.0g.2024 in I A. \o 137 of 2022 in O.S.No'52 of 2014 passed by the IX Additional District judge, R.R.Diskict at L'B'Nagar'

2. Heard Sri Ir.sriharinath, Iearned counsel for petitioner' No representation on behalf o[ the respondent despite service of rrotice.

3. The petitiont:r herein is the defendant and responderLt herein is the plaintiff befor,: the trial Court For convenience' hereinafter the parties are referre,,l to as theY are arrayed in the suit'

4. Brief facts rclevant for adiudication of the Present Civil Revision Petition are thai plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sak: clatecl 05.02.2014 in resPect of agricu ltural land admeasuring Ac 1.20 guntas in Sy.No.616/UU, Chilkuru village of Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. Summons was sewed on the defendant ancl he entcred appearance and the matter was Posted on

17.06.2016 for $,ntterr statement, however, neither written statement was filed nor thcr.e tvas representation on behalf of the dtrfendant on that day and, th,:refore, the tria[ Court set the defendant ex parte. Subsequently, the trial Court on due consideration of the nraterial and evidence placed on record, passed et parte judgment and decree on 2

15.09.2017

5. The defendant filed an application arZe I.A.No.13 7 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 13 of CpC to set aside tle ex partejudgment and decree along with an application under section 5 0f the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 442 days in filing apprication under order IX Rule 13 of CPC. In the said application, defendant averred that he received summons and engaged a counsel to defend his case, however, on 77.06.2076 as written statement was not filed nor there was representation on his behalf, the trial Court was pleased to set the defendant er parte and thereafter, passed ex partcjudgment and decree on 7509'2017' It is averred that his wife fell ,l-health with jaundice from 06'06'2076 to 26.12.201g and he was attending to his wife as she was taking ayurvedic treatment for jaundice and as such, he could not attend the Court and arso courd not contact his counser for filing written statement. It is further ave,ed that after recovery of his wife from r- health, he enquired with his counser anrc came to know that an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on1s.09.2017 and he met the plaintiff and questioned as to why he did not press tlre suit as per their understanding and promise. However, plaindff did not give any answer and, therefore, he is constrained to approach the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree along with ttte application under Section 5 of Limitation Act fcr conclonation of 442 days in filing the a1;plication J under Order IX Rultr 13 of CPC'

6. Plaintif i file'ci :ounter resisting the application and contended that the application is devoid of any merit and same has been filed basing on concocted story. tt is further contended that despite having knowledge abouttheexparteorderdatedTT'06'201'6'defendantdidnottake immediate stePs to file application under Order IX Rule 7 of tlPC to set asidetheexparfeorderandthattheapplicationfiledbythedr':fendantis devoid of any nrerit and no ProPer reasons are assigned for condonation of abnormal delay o[ 442 days in filing the iipplication under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. T,Thetrial(ilurtondueconsiderationofcontenticrnsofthe defendantintheapplicationasrvellascontentionsraisedinlhecounter filed by the plairrtiff opposing the application for condonatk'n of delay' had dismissed thrl application r,ir/e order dated 26.03.2024., The trial Courtobservedtlratthoughthedefendantfiledapplicationalongwith the written statenlent on 02.01.2019, defendant failed to i;ubmit any document evid encing ilt-health of his wife as well irs medical prescriptions or any other document in support of his contention' g. Learned c.ounsel for defendant contended that due to ill-health of his wife as she rvas taking Ayurvedic treatment, the deferrdant could 4 not contact his counsel and file the written statement and defend the suit' It is further contended that since the wife of the defendant is taking ayurvedic treatment for jaundice, no medical report was produced before the trial Court. This fact was not properly appreciated by the trial Court and dismissed the application only on the ground that no documents are filed in proof of treatment of wife of defendant. It is further contended that to show his bona fide, the defendant along with the application has also fired written statement and, therefore, a renient view may be taken for delay of 442 dayssince the rights of defendant in immovable property wourd be affected if the delay is not condoned. 9 . Perusal of the record would disclose that defendant was set ex parte for non-f ing of written statement on LT.o6.2oI6 and defendant did not take any step immediately to set aside the ex parte order, which clearly shows that defendant was not diligent in defending the suir. Admittedly, defendant filed application under Order IX Rule 13 of CpC to set ex parte jud,gment and decree along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 442 days in hling the application to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Further, defendant failed to place any material in proof of ill-health of his wife and also treatment taken by her. The trial Court has categorically observed that no material is placed evidencing ilr-hearth of his wife and also treatment taken by her and thus, the trial Court has rightly refused to condone the delav of 442 5 days since the deft:r'Lrlant iailed to explain abnormal delaS'of 442 days' It is also relevant t() note that suit is trled for specific perforr nance of agreement of sale and it was decreed on15 09'2017 Therefore' this Court is also consc'ious of the fact that substantial rights h ave been accrued to the pJairrtiff, which cannot be negatived' more r;o' when there are clear la1-ches and default on the part of defendant Further' thedefendantfailerltoexplainabnormaldelayot442daysbyoffering cogent, plausible reasons in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

10. In Basawaraj and another v Special Land Acquisition Oflicerr, the Honhle Supreme Court held as under 'lrcrr:"ii "t..,ti.ttttt '11. The expression 'suffrcient cause" should be given a libr:ral r"i..pt"Lii"1, i"-ensure that substantial justice is done' but r:n1y o' tack of bona fides carutot be so long os negligence, inputed to tne partu concemed' u'hether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can oe decided on the facts o[ a'partictrlar v formula is possibte {Vide 'tfadankr'l ;;;;;.,o ;;;;;;; iizooul r"scc s3s:AtR zdoz st r00t and Rotn ttoth Z,it7'.-c"ii-a*i"sco[(2002) 3 scc les:AIR2002 sc 1201] ] of limitation rnay 12. It is a settled legal proposition that lalv a partiJulai patty but it has. to be applied rvith all i-..JfV it" feo"a !-hen the statute so prescrtbes' The court has no p('wer il;fJr; it. p"J.a ot limitation on equitable grou.nds' 'A r('sult flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil A court has no ;}#-;",*";-itttf ,con^sider-s -a ii"ii""" i."-"f,i"g from iis operation." The statutory provrsron may causehardshiporinconveniencetoaparticularparty.bulthe r.r*, rro choice but to enforce it giving futl effect to the sirme. i'tans "the law is :rard il; G;i ,nuii au'.o tt' tii r"* "6ich "."J but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation [t has been hetd that' "inconvenience is not" a decisive "Ji"i"t.","- iactor to be considered while interpreting a statute' 'pioui"io" to relieve ivhat it "ii",,a . tm(

15. The la.w on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been Presented in the court beyond limit?tion' ttr.'"ppU."i, has to exptain the court as to what rvas the ' zor: (r+) scc gl 6 'su_fficient cause" which me which prevenred hi;';;;;'.""" an adequale and enouRh reason r'he courl within limi"tation. rn case a party r. ir"J i;;sl'-"::t his pari in in" rrli""u n"a"l,lllie:''' or ror want of bona fide on lavi-not *,J ;;lt;;;;;lrrcumstances or the case' or found to Justllred ground to condone ::Ti'ltd inactive, lhere cannot be a o:r?v No court could be iustified in condon'ing g.:*i::x:i#l';;r[i{[.?:'1"'ffi."':-.,r'"".iis'H: in resard to the condonation ira"r"y.l, to appioach ,t . ."r., 'o" lo prevent a litigant ing lhe delav without any justificarion. or:rrin- "";,."'::?,19-t" p.""ing rn' o.i". ' ir"rilir',-i"to r l ron whatsoever' amorrnts to o', t. n t,","o,. t " t o"; h ;, ;; : I ;'J .: l.[:.:, ?:1,rT"!1.;,,"J::.:," ";J ;;',;;;;,ln: "I"l il:;:J:'j::.:rl iilsullrcrent.cause 1 1 . and others vs. Living Media India Apex Court having considered catena In postmaster General Limited and another2, Hontrle of decisions, including pundlik Jalam patil (deadf by E)recutive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium project and wherein it was held that, LRs. Vs. another3, " 17.. -.... The evidence on fl.Jrl_ jxf #;:*ilT"rtri.::T{i:!ff rg#jJ:"d#.ifi i., equitv. rhe coJ; i"i*'in::^tie ground ol'equitv' Delav defeats "rose u ho are vigilant and "do not slumber ou". it "r rP5 "i.'.ieh"rl:' and observed that raking.very lenient view in condoning the delay, B#"".iH; Jlr,lnl.,*t or rn" cou'-"","La Government proper and observed as under:_ l'!t ;fl;ilJi"* iliJff:l':$"' ar our hands rhar the object-ror nxing 5{1..,"t",..?J:,"f"" jJ:d:i:l!:iJ:i*;l:IH:f }:.ffiJ:; resort ro dilatory tactics but avait their t.e"t ..*;;I];;"^ th-eraws".;;;';;"":,"i"i;lH;i;?l.j, jil:xr"Tff ;3$.*1 30. Public interest undoubtedly rs a paramount consideration in exercrsing 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 oI compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Pubtlc interest demand s that the State or the benefrciar5r of acquisition, case may be, should not be allo wed to indulge in any act to le the settled legal rights accrued in law by r€sorting to avoidable lirigatio n unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benelit to rvhich they are otherwise not entitled, in any aqrrht unsdtt '?lzorz; I scc soa 3 1zoofi:cc aas 7 frauduler'rtmanner.OneshouldnotforSetthebasicfactthat\\.ha.iS acquired is not t.he ftt'a U"t the livelitiood of the landloscrs Th( rse ought to be kept. in.mind bv the courts public interest p."rn*t" rvhite exercisrng th" d;";;"ti; deating with the application fi.ed under Section 5 of tne iimitation Act Dragging the landlosers to I'ftt-itt-l"ation of legal proceedrngs rr oLrld courts of 1aw yr:ars "rttt not sen'e tt,y p'UUt i"t"rest Settled rights cannot be ligltly interfered with :y condonit'g it'otOlt'tt" deiay u'ithout [hcre being detay on the ground of involvcmrnt ;;;-;;;p". .i-i,.iurrJ ..'r".,'',t lt sewes no public interest " .*pt'tt'ttiot' oi "u"ch

12. In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Departmentt reP.by Executive Engineer vs' Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limitedr ' Hon'ble Supreme Court held as un.der: "63. ......In a fit case in which a party has otherri'ise acted bona llde and not in a negligent manner' " st'ott delay beyond such period .;;,;;',h. ai"..?ti-o., of the court, be.condoned' alwa-1's bearing in il"a-ir"i tl" other side of the picture is that the opposite part) mal, it' equitv at'd iustict' what ma]' no* be los't bv il;; il;*;;oth it . n."t pu.ry'" inaction, negligence or laches'" In vieq, of the above discussion and legal positiotl, in considered l3 opinion of this Oourt, the reasons offered by thc ap lellant for of this Court condonation of d'elay does not inspire the conltdencc since no plausible explanation has been offered delay of 442 days in hling application and no been shown for such delay, the Civil Revision Petitior-r deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed' There shall be no order as to sufficient cause has for huge inordinate costs. 14. Pending miscellaleous applications if any shall stan(l closed. \w>)A$r+$c> S.l/ - L LAKSHMI BABU ASS tS.IANT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY / I SIICTION OFFICER To, I 2 T'he lX Additional District Judge' R R District-at,L [i o":. et ;;;i- i;^ir" s'in'ii.'u tf, ' Ad'' o.- u te [o I' U Cl Trvo CD CoPir:s Nagar JCK/Dt, IIIGH COURT DATED:19l02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1449 of 2024 Dismissing the C.R.P. rvithout costs t'/,'; l),) ii.\ ( lr, trr6STA r(- o -bn t 19 APn 2[25 k Dl: sPp.Tc , o)