Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Kothuri Chakradhara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Tadala Satyanarayana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. - Heard Sri Ponada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.211 of 2016 pending in the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.
3. The plaintiff/respondent filed the said suit for a decree for a sum of Rs.21, 97, 500.00 and for subsequent interest from the date of the promissory note against the defendant. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1430 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule 1-A and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') to condone the delay in filing the document i.e., 'chit book' containing his bid transactions in the name of respondent/plaintiff and his wife Sarada Devi. The same was contested by the plaintiff/respondent. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 30/8/2023 rejected the application. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of delay is not justified. Placing reliance in the case of Leva
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice, and the court has the discretion to allow applications even in cases of delay by imposing cos....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC should not be solely based on delay, and the rules of procedure should serve the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not permit the filing of additional documents at a belated stage if it would only protract the case, as established by the princ....
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
The burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the party seeking condonation. Negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant may not justify condoning the delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
