The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot extend the limitation on equitable grounds if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides are made out and the cause pleaded by the petitioner is not established.

ORDER :

1. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 17.03.2015 in I.A. No. 121 of 2014 in A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The revision-petitioner is the appellant in A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge “Dismissed” the appeal vide A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on 03.10.2012, for default. The revision-petitioner filed I.A. No. 121 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “the Act”) to condone the delay of 412 days in filing an application to set-aside the above referred dismissal order in the appeal.

3. The revision-petitioner in his affidavit filed before the First Appellate Court stated that for the last sixteen (16) months he was seriously ill and therefore, he could not meet his counsel to give instructions and four days prior to the date of affidavit, he visited the office of his counsel, and he was informed that the appeal was “Dismissed for default” on 03.10.2012 due to non-prosecution.

4. The respondent No. 4 opposed the application and in his verified counter, it was contended that the cause pleaded by the revision-petitioner is false and if really a person suffers ill-health from 25.09.2012 to 30.05.2013, he will have medical record, but the revision-petitioner simply produced a certificate with false information managing the doctor and therefore, the cause pleaded by the revision-petitioner is devoid of any merits.

5. The learned First Appellate Court, upon considering the rival contentions held that the revision-petitioner neither examine the doctor nor produce the medical record with prescriptions and diagnostic report proving the alleged ill-health during the period i.e. from 25.09.2012 to 30.05.2013 and dismissed the application.

6. In the light of the above context of the revision petitioner/appellant and the respondents, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the First Appellate Court committed any material irregularity in the impugned Order, dated 17.03.2015 passed in I.A. No. 121 of 2014 in A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada?”

7. POINT:

It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner preferred A.S. No. 120 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada challenging the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S. No. 303 of 2005, dated 25.10.2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. It is also an undisputed fact that the appeal was “Dismissed for default” on 03.10.2012 due to non-prosecution; to set-aside the same, the revision-petitioner filed I.A. No. 121 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Act to condone the delay of 412 days; The cause submitted for delay is that he suffered from ill-health bedridden for a period of 16 months; The respondent No. 4 disputed the truth of the cause and contended that the revision-petitioner produced a Medical Certificate with false information by managing the Doctor.

8. In this context, it is imperative to refer the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 wherein their Lordships at Para Nos. 23 and 24 held as under:

“23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.

24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona