The Hon'ble Supreme court, in Barwant singh (Dead) v. Jagdish singh ors

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to of all further proceedings in E.P. No.4 ot 2022 in O.S. No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Sircilla, at Rajanna Sircilla, pending disposal of the above CRP. 5 Counsel for the Fetitioner: Ms. R.MADHAVI LATHA, AdvocaG Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. UDAY KUMAR KUKKADAPU' Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Civil Revision No.3732 of2025 Ff,iI The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.09.2025 passed in I.A. No. 259 of 2022 in O.S. No. 24 of 2018 by the leamed Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajanna Sircilla, at Sircilla (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order").

2. Heard Ms.R.Madhavi Latha, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Uday Kumar Kukkadapu, leamed counsel for the respondents.

3. I-eamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ defendant No.2 in the suit proceedings could not eflectively prosecute his case due to serious health complications, particularly a cardiac ailment. It is contended that the trial court, without duly considering the submissions made and the supporting medical materials placed on record, passed the impugned order declining an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the liability. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of summons during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner approached defendant No.l (the principal borrower), who assured him that he would take necessary steps to contest the matter. Relying on 2 such assurance, the petitioner remained inactive. However, subsequent to the decree, defendant No.l passed away, leaving the petitioner solely liable for the entire decretal amount. In such circumstances, it is urged that the trial court ought to have afforded the petitioner an opportunity to defend his case on merits. Hence, the leamed counsel prays for indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned order.

4. Leamed counsel for respondent No.l, on the other hand, contends that even by the petitioner's own admission, he was aware of the pendency of the suit proceedings. It is submitted that both defendant Nos.l and 2 had engaged the same counsel and had jointly filed a vakalatnama. Therefore, the plea of non-participation in the proceedings is a wilful act and cannot constitute sufficient cause under Seition 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is further contended that the delay of 1379 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree I has not been satisfactorily explained. The reason furnished is vague, unsupported by substantive medical evidence, and do not demonstrate diligence or bona fides on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel thus submits that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion \ o ::3:: in refusing to condone the delay, and prays for dismissal of the present revision petition.

5. I have perused the material placed on record and carefully considered the submissions advanced by both learned counsel. 6- The impugned petition was filed seeking condonation of delay of 1379 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The suit was instituted in the year 2olg,and the decree was passed on

30.10.2018. The present petition was filed only in the year 2022. Even as per the petitioner's own pleadings, he had knowledge of the pendency of the suit but refrained from contesting it on the assurance of defendant No.l. Such explanation cannot constitute sfficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in Barwant singh (Dead) v. Jagdish singh & ors., (2010) 8 scc. 6g5, held that ..a liberal approach irr condoning delay does not mean a license to file petitions at will, disregarding time limits prescribed by law. Similarly, in Esha a Bhattacharjee v. Managing committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 scc 649, itwas reiterated that ,,sfficient cattse,, \ -l . 4 must be genuine, bona fide, and not a mere pretext to cover an intentional or negligent omission.

8. The petitioner has relied upon medical prescriptions and radiological reports to substantiate his plea of ill health. However, these documents merely establish that the petitioner underwent treatment for a cardiac condition; they do not speciS the period during which he was incapacitated or unable to participate in the legal proceedings. Hence, the explanation lacks material particulars and fails to demonstrate continuous or unavoidable inability to prosecute the matter diligently.

9. It is also pertinent that the petitioner chose to contest the maffer only after initiation of execution proceedings, claiming that he became "-*g of the decree upon receipt of notice in execution. This assertion is contrary to his own admission of prior knowledge of the suit and thus amounts to a misstatement. Such conduct reflects a lack of bona fides and an attempt to protract proceedings.

10. In light of the above discussion and the admitted factual matrix,n this Court finds that the reasons assigned for condonation of tt6 inordinate delay of 1379 days are neither satisfactory nor supported a\ 5 by cogent evidence. The trial court has rightly exercised its discretion in declining to condone the delay, having assigned valid and reasoned hndings. In the absence of any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order, there exists no ground warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ll. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending ifany, shall stand closed SD'. T.SRINIVASA REDDY AS STANT REGISTRAR .. -.--.-- -.F //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Sircilla' at Rajanna Sircilla,

2. One CC to MS. R.MADHAVI LATHA, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. UDAY KUMAR KUKKADAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I<s RC/PSL a HIGH GOURT DATED: 06/1 112025 J ', ..,1 , ORDER CRP.No.3732 of 2025 ?{i i( I Accordinsly, this il,Ll"J5ion Petition stands Jrs-il* a