IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is essential to uphold the principles of substantial justice in delay condonation applications.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) :

Heard Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder in all the civil revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals.

2. The petitioner/1st respondent is decree holder in whose favour there are two arbitration awards in AC Nos.50 & 51 of 2010 against the judgment debtors, the petitioners in civil revision petitions / appellants in civil miscellaneous appeals, two in number. The judgment debtors filed their respective separate objections/claim against the attachment of E. P. Schedule properties in E.P.Nos.605 & 606 of 2016. They were dismissed in default on 26.04.2018. The judgment debtors’ applications for setting aside that Order under Order 21 Rule 105 (2) and 106 r/w. Section 151 CPC, were rejected on 07.08.2023, consequent upon rejection of their Section 5 application for condonation of delay in filing application for setting aside the Order dated 26.04.2018. Challenging the orders dated 07.08.2023, aforesaid four civil revision petitions and four civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the judgment debtors.

3. The Orders under challenge are common though separate. The common arguments have been advanced. All the civil revision petitions and civil miscellaneous appeals are being decided by this common judgment, referring CRP No.236 of 2024 as the lead case.

4. This Civil Revision Petition No.236 of 2024 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed challenging the Order dated 07.08.2023 in E.A.No.1657 of 2019 in E.A.No.1077 of 2016 in E.P.No.606 of 2016 in A.C.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari.

5. A.C.No.51 of 2010 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent herein/decree holder-M/s.Sakthi Finance Limited, Rajahmundry. The decree holder filed E.P.No.606 of 2016 in which the petitioner’ property was attached. The petitioner filed claim petition E.A.No.1077 of 2016 to raise the attachment. The petitioner’s case was that the 2nd respondent (Judgment Debtor No.2)-Karuturi Srilakshmi sold the schedule properties to the petitioner in terms of the registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14.05.2009 and 16.05.2009 and since then the claim petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule properties. Her case was that on the date fixed to give evidence, she could not appear before the Court to give evidence as her husband was suffering from ill-health and was taking treatment for his vertebra fracture. The doctor advised him to take rest and she was attending him. The main petition E.A.No.1077 of 2016 was dismissed for not adducing evidence, vide Order dated 26.04.2018.

6. The 1st respondent/decree holder filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that the reason of ill-health of the petitioner’s husband was incorrect. The medical certificate disclosed that the husband of the petitioner underwent treatment from 10.04.2018 to 31.12.2018 only. The reason shown was not sufficient to condone the delay. The petitioner was not vigilant in prosecuting the main petition. The sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney did not confer any title and the objection to that effect had already been overruled on 18.02.2016.

7. The learned Executing Court framed the following point for determination:

“Whether valid and sufficient grounds are made out by the petitioners, to set aside the default order dated 26.04.2018, passed in E.A.No.1077 of 2016?”

8. The learned Executing Court observed that the 1st respondent/decree holder filed the main execution petition seeking sale of item Nos. 1 to 3 of petition schedule properties of the 2nd respondent/2nd judgment debtor, and initially, the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram had overruled the objections raised by the 2nd respondent/2nd judgment debtor with regard t