IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays for substituting legal representatives, prioritizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

3. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.33 of 2016, pending in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant therein, namely Nemani Suryanarayana Murthy died on 30.03.2019. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1265 of 2019 on 12.09.2019 to substitute legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, but there was delay and the application was not supported by any application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement. Consequently, I.A.No.1265 of 2019 was rejected by order dated 09.09.2022. Challenging the said Order, the plaintiff/1st respondent filed CRP.No.2295 of 2022. During pendency of the said revision, the plaintiff/1st respondent, realizing said mistake, also filed I.A.Nos.915, 916 and 917 of 2023 in the suit to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant along with the applications for condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement. In view thereof, CRP No.2295 of 2022 was dismissed as infructuous, but with the direction to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of those applications pending in the suit, vide Order dated 06.10.2023.

4. The petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid I.A. Nos.915, 916 and 917 of 2023.

5. On consideration, the learned trial Court has allowed I.A.Nos.915, 916 and 917 of 2023 by the common Order dated 05.03.2024. Challenging the said Order, passed on those applications, the present revision petitions have been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of 1487 days, but the plaintiff in their application stated the delay as of 765 days. The petitioner filed objection pointing out the exact delay. His submission is that instead of considering the exact days of delay, the trial Court considering the delay only of 765 days, condoned the delay and allowed the applications.

7. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 1487 days is from the date of death of the 1st defendant up to the date of filing of I.A.Nos.915, 916 and 917 of 2023. He submits that when the previous application was filed, there was also some delay, but that application was not supported by any prayer of condonation of delay or/and setting aside abatement.

8. The learned trial Court has considered the aspect of delay. It has observed that the date of death of the 1st defendant is 30.03.2019. The previous petition was filed on 12.09.2019. Excluding the period of 90 days from the date of death, an application should have been filed by the end of June 2019, but it was filed on 12.09.2019. The learned trial Court has further observed with respect to the present applications, that the reason for not filing the petition at the earliest was due to corona pandemic which engulfed the universe from March 2020. It found that the delay was properly explained and there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay and condoned the delay.

9. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that there was delay of 1487 days up to the date of filing of the applications for the second time.

10. In view of the facts not in dispute and the proceedings in CRP No.2295 of 2022 being pending against the first order of rejection dated 09.09.2022 and during pendency thereof, the present applications having been filed, after the Corona pandemic, this Court is of the view that, there would be no delay beyond the delay of 765 days, which was on the date of filing of the first application, and if there was any delay (i.e., 765 days as contended by the plaintiff in the suit) or as contended by the petitioner’s counsel (i.e., 1487 days), on filing of the present applications, the same has been properly explained. The 1