Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its District Collector, Cuddalore & Ors. v. A.M. Rathinam Pillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPALC.R.P (N.P.D)No.1830 of 2008and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its District Collector, Cuddalore.2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Thittakudi. ..PetitionersVs.A.M. Rathinam Pillai ..RespondentPRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC,against the order and decreetal order dated 06.12.2006 made in I.A.No.204/2006 in O.S.164/97 on the file of District Munsif cum JudicialMagistrate, Tittagudi.For Petitioners :Mrs. R. RevathyAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondent:Mrs. A. Nilaphar forMs. R. MeenalO R D E RThe petitioners herein have preferred the Civil RevisionPetition as against the order dated 6.12.2006 in I.A.No.204 of 2006in O.S.No.167 of 1997 passed by the learned District Munsif cumJudicial Magistrate, Tittagudi in dismissing the application filed bythe petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying tocondone a delay of 1504 days in setting aside the ex-parte decreedated 10.10.2001 passed in the main suit.2.The trial Court while passing orders in I.A. No. 204 of2006 has stated that the reason assigned by the petitioners that theAssistant Divisional Engineer has not been present in the Court whenthe case has come up for hearing and further that the suit file havegot mixed up with the other files, and therefore, the delay that has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occasioned, has not been accepted and resultantly dismissed theapplication without costs. 3.According to the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners, the order of the trial Court in dismissing the Section 5application is against law and further the trial Court has notappreciated all the facts, that only due to urgency of work that theAdditional Divisional Engineer has not appeared before the trialCourt on 10.10.2001 when the ex-parte decree has been passed andsufficient reasons assigned for condonation of delay have not beenproperly appreciated by the trial Court in a right perspective andtherefore it has resulted in miscarriage of justice and thereforeprays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.4.It is further represented on the side of the revisionpetitioners that in the application filed under Section 5 of theLimitation Act, the Court of law has to adopt a liberal approach ina meaningful way.5.The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitsthat the petitioners in the affidavit in I.A No. 204 of 2006 hasassigned reasons falsely in regard to the delay of 1504 days which isoccasioned and the trial Court, after considering the overall factsand circumstances of the case,has come to a right conclusion indismissing the application and the same need not be inferred with bythis Court sitting in revision.6.In support of the contention that the petitioners have notassigned sufficient cause in regard to the delay of 1504 daysmentioned in the application, the learned counsel for therespondent/plaintiff cites the decision in United India InsuranceCompany Ltd. Division Office, Pondicherry Vs. Pravin Paul2.N.Periannam(1993-1L.W.68) where in it is observed as follows:-" the delay of 131 days in filing the CMA againstthe order of the MACT on the part of theappellant/insurance company was not justified andcannot be condoned. The court declined to acceptthe submission that the petitioner was anInsurance company, that it is a Governmentundertaking, that it is usual that suchadministrative delay would occur and the delay hasoccurred only account of administrative reasonsand that unless the delay is condoned, thepetitioner would be put to very great hardship.The Government Undertaking cannot be equated withthe Government and they are expected to givedetails with regard to the delay. "We cannotcondone the delay if it is simply stated,administrative delay. Hence, we are of the view https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that this is a case where the petitioner has notsatisfactorily explained the delay, which isinordinate, in filing the appeal."7.In another decision Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madras v.Mrs. Sakuntala Ganapathy Rao, Proprietor (1998-3-L.W.780) is reliedon the side of the respondent to the effect that the "delay cannotbe excused where a party is not under a disability and he was awareof the judgment and a right is created when the stipulated timeexpires."8.This Court has paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made on both sides and noticed the same.9.It is to be borne in mind that the term "sufficient cause"under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have to be given apurposeful and meaningful interpretation. In the considered opinionof this Court ordinarily a litigant does not stand to gain bypreferring an application belatedly. It is not that the delay hasoccasioned deliberately or based on malafide intention or even onaccount of culpable negligence. However the Court of law in regardto condonation of delay application should not adopt a pedanticapproach, instead it should approach the matter in issue in a liberaland pragmatic manner.10.As a matter of fact, by allowing an application filed underSection 5 of Limitation Act, the maximum thing that can happen is, aparty is allowed to take part in the main proceedings and the maincause can be decided on merits after providing due opportunities toboth parties. Moreover, the deliverance of substantial justice is tobe preferred overriding technicalities. It is to be noted that thejudiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalizeinjustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removinginjustice and is expected to do so.11.Therefore, by adopting a liberal view and interpreting theterm "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,thisCourt allows the Civil Revision Petition of course with a conditionthat the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Threethousand only) as costs to the learned counsel for the respondentsdirectly on or before 03.08.2009 failing which the civil revisionpetition shall stand automatically dismissed.12.In the result the Civil Revision Petition is allowedleaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by thetrial Court in I.A. No. 204 of 2005 in O.S.No. 164 of 97 dated06.12.2006 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to pay a sumof Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards costs to thelearned counsel for the respondents directly and the same is to bepaid on or before 03.08.2009 failing which the petition shall stand https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ automatically dismissed without any further reference. Consequently,connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarprmTo The District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudi.+ 1 c.c. to Ms. R. Meenal, Advocate. S.R.No.33930.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.34110.C.R.P.(N.P.D)No.1830 of 2008And M.P.No.1 of 2008 CK (CO)GSK 04.08.2009.