Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Bogirala Kondaiah(Died) Died - Petitioner
Vs.
Sheelam Laxmi Soujanya W/o. Venkateswara Reddy - Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3177, 3178 and 3183 of 2024
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 120, and 121 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 22 Rules 3 and 9 - Specific performance suit - Plaintiff's death during trial - Legal heirs' applications for substitution and to set aside abatement dismissed by trial court - Delay in filing applications - Court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay must be liberally construed to advance substantial justice - Trial court's calculation of delay was erroneous and did not consider the merits of the case. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 14)
(B) Legal heirs - The legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff must be brought on record within 90 days of death, and an application to set aside abatement must be filed within 60 days thereafter - The court must assess the reasons for delay independently, regardless of the opposing party's lack of objection. (Paras 5, 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement but died before the trial. His legal heirs sought to substitute him and set aside the abatement, which was initially dismissed due to delay. The trial court's dismissal was challenged in civil revision petitions.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was set aside, allowing the applications to substitute the legal heirs and to set aside the abatement, subject to payment of costs.
Issues: The main issues were the calculation of delay in filing applications and whether the trial court properly assessed the reasons for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court erred in its calculation of delay and emphasized that the concept of 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice is served.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed.
COMMON ORDER :
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
The plaintiff by name Bogirala Kondaiah fled suit O.S. No. 223 of 2016 on the file of Junior Judge (Civil Division) Kanigiri for specific performance to compel the respondent / defendant to execute a sale deed basing on the agreement of sale deed dated 23-08-2013 claiming inertia to do so the same by the Court. While the suit is under trial, the plaintiff died on 21.09.2003. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiffs’ wife and the children have filed two applications viz., I.A. No.1460 of 2024 to bring them as legal heirs under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and I.A. No.1459 of 2024 to set aside the abatement under Oder 22 Rule 9 (2) CPC, and filed I.A. 1458 of 2024 on 05.07.2024 to condone the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and to permit the petitioners in the Revision Petition to continue suit.
2. The very learned trial judge has dismissed the I.A. 1458 of 2024 which was filed on 05.07.2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay in bringing the deceased plaintiff’s legal representative with an observation noting “that the party should demonstrate sufficient cause for not meeting the prescribed deadline in filing the application in time, but since the petitioner failed to any explanation for the delay, and the petitioner might be under the impression that the Court would grant his application automatically, basing on the opposing party’s “no objection” endorsement without gauging the merits of the application and it amounts to misconception on the petitioner’s part and the judicial discretion requires more just consent form the other party and the Court must independently assess whether the reasons for the delay are reasonable and justifiable and the onus of providing a valid explanation for the delay does not abate just because the other party does not object”, The other two applications were consequently dismissed vide common order dated 13.11.2024.
3. Assailing the common order dated the 13.11.2024, the present three Civil Revision Petitions filed:
CRP No. 3177 of 2024 is filed against order in I.A. 1458 of 2024 which application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement.
CRP No. 3178 of 2024 is filed against order in I.A. 1460 of 2024 which application is filed to bring the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff.
CRP No. 3183 of 2024 is filed against the order in I.A. 1459 of 2024, which application is filed to set aside the abatement on the grounds that procedural and technical hurdles cannot impede substantial justice, the delay is not abnormal, there is no willful latches on the part of the petitioners, and they are illiterate, and refusing to condone the delay is against to settle law of principle.
4. Notice is served on the sole respondent but no appearance is made either in person or through an advocate. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and this Court makes the following order.
5. Under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation to have (bring) the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant; of a deceased defendant or respondent made a party is ninety days from the date of death of the plaintiff, defendant or respondent as the case may be.
6. Under Article 121 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation to set aside an abatement is sixty days from the date of abatement. Legal heirs of the deceased can be brought on record within 160 days from the date death of the deceased.
7. This Court is unable to understand how the learned trial Court has calculated 255 days delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement without mentioning the date of filing of application into the Court. The suit would abate as against the deceased plaintiff after the period of 90 days from the date of death as provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, if the legal heirs
The court emphasized that delays in filing applications under the Limitation Act should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, particularly when no gross negligence is present.
The word 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafide....
A litigant must show sufficient cause for delay in filing petitions; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Litigants must maintain diligence about their cases; blaming counsel for delays does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning such delays under the Limitation Act.
The Limitation Act applies to execution proceedings, and a party can seek to condone delay in filing applications related to such proceedings.
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
