A petitioner must substantiate the cause for delay in filing a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to be granted condonation of delay.

ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in I.A. No. 388 of 2011 in O.S. No. 317 of 2007 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 366 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of plaint schedule property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 07.05.1991. As the agreement of sale was executed on Rs. 50/- stamp paper, the petitioner filed a petition to impound the document. Accordingly, the Court was pleased to refer the document to Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn forwarded the same to the District Registrar. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed a memo before the Court contending that he is not required to pay the stamp duty and penalty i.e. impounding fee on the document sued upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted a decision along with the memo. Accordingly, a letter was addressed by the trial Court to the Registrar, who in turn sent the document back to the Court. The said document was received by the Court from the Registrar and posted the suit to 15.03.2010. On the date of adjournment, the petitioner could not appear before the Court due to fever, which led to jaundice. As there was no representation by the Advocate for the petitioner, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and posted the suit to 22.03.2010, again on 30.03.2010, but none appeared before the Court. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for default on 06.04.2010. On enquiry by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioner and non-representation by the counsel. Thus, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Court, requested to condone the delay of 366 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order.

3. The respondents remind ex parte.

4. Upon hearing argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not prevented from sufficient cause and absolutely no reason was shown by the petitioner as to why he could not file application in time to set aside the dismissal order, thus there is sheer negligence and latches on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the case.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds mainly contending that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient cause, which prevented him from appearing before the Court and the Court cannot adopt pedantic approach and consider the cause shown by the petitioner liberally, but the trial Court failed to exercise discretion conferred on it by Section 5 of Limitation Act, committed an error, prayed to set aside the same.

6. Sri D. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterated the contentions urged in the revision petition and contended that the Courts must make endeavour to dispose of the suit on merits and not for default, placed reliance the judgment of the Apex Court in "Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 359". It is also further contended that the petitioner pleaded specific cause i.e. sufferance from fever, which lead to Jaundice, but the Court did not consider the same in proper perspective and committed grave error, requested to set aside the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order in all respects while contending that when the petitioner pleaded specific cause, which prevented him from appearing before the Court on a particular date when the suit was posted, it must be substantiated by cogent evidence and a