The respondent presented a plaint in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, arraying the petitioner herein as sole defendant, claiming the relief of recovery of money, on the basis of a promissory note, 19.03.2001. The plaint was returned on 23.03.2004, on the ground that adequate Court fee was not paid; fixing seven days time for compliance with the objection. However, the respondent represented the plaint only about 41/2 years thereafter. He filed I.A.No.743 of 2008 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay.

The trial Court ordered notice to the petitioner. He filed a counter opposing the application. It was stated that the issue pertaining to the promissory note, was resolved between the parties and that the suit was filed with a malicious intention. He further pleaded that the delay is enormous and it cannot be condoned at all. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 01.05.2010. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the reasons pleaded by the respondent for condonation of such enormous delay, are unbelievable and still the I.A., was allowed. He contends that though the Court would adopt a liberal approach in condonation of delay in representation of proceedings, it cannot be to the extent of defeating the very concept of limitation.

Sri K.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it is always on the discretion of the Court to condone the delay in representation and that the respondent could not represent the plaint within time, on account of the communication gap between himself and his counsel in the trial Court. He places reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in M/s.Giridhari Auto Finance Private Limited, Khammam v. Gudla Hari Babu 2003 (3) L.S. 431 (D.B.) and Sivishi Associates and others v. Jagadeeshwari Agencies 2006 (2) ALT 704.

The respondent intended to file the suit against the petitioner for recovery of amount, on the basis of promissory note dated 19.03.2001. The plaint was presented on 19.03.2004, without paying the stipulated Court fee. Naturally, the plaint was returned by giving seven days time to the respondent to pay the deficit Court fee. It was only after 41/2 years that the respondent represented the plaint, together with an application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay. Obviously because of the huge extent of delay involved in the matter, the trial Court issued a notice to the petitioner, though in the ordinary course of things the defendant in a suit is not heard until it is numbered. The only reason pleaded by the respondent for condonation of such a delay was that he lost communication with his counsel due to his personal work pressure. Except this, no other reason stated. The application was opposed by the petitioner by raising several grounds. The trial Court passed an order on 01.05.2010, condoning the delay.

In the last paragraph of the order, the trial Court summed up its conclusions. Though the sentences are not properly worded, the gist of discussion is that the plea of the respondent that he lost the communication with his counsel is unbelievable and that once he has entrusted the matter to his counsel, he was under obligation to be in touch with him from time to time, at least once in six months or one year and it is highly improbable that the respondent did not have communication with his counsel for a period of 1687 days. Having said this, learned Judge condoned the delay on the only ground that the deficit Court fee has been paid and he felt it appropriate to adjudicate the matter on merits.

The condonation of delay in representation is always in the discretion of the Court and hardly the opposite party would have any say in the matter. It is not uncommon that the plaints, applications or appeals presented before the Courts, a