Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Sea Coast Logistics and Marine Infrastructure – Appellant
Versus
TGV SRAAC Ltd. (formerly Sree Rayalseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited) – Respondent
ORDER :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.Hema Bindhu Karuturi, learned counsel representing Ms.G.K.V.D. Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) by the defendants being aggrieved from the order, dated 30.09.2024, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2024 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 (in short ‘COS’) on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada (in short ‘the Special Judge’), dismissing their application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 464 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the exparte decree dated 18.11.2022 in C.O.S.No.8 of 2021.
3. The plaintiff/respondent-M/s. TGV SRAAC Ltd., (formerly Rayalseema Alkalies and Allied Chemicals Limited) filed C.O.S.No.8 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,31,31,621/- being the outstanding amount due from the petitioners/defendants along with accrued interest and for some other reliefs. The suit was decreed exparte on 18.11.2022.
Actual service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due is valid, even if defendants reside outside jurisdiction, and non-compliance with procedural rules does not equate to no service.
The court reaffirmed that substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute adequate service, necessitating substantiation of claims in applications for condonation of delay.
Judicial discretion in condoning delay must favor substantial justice over rigid adherence to timelines, though sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pursuit of legal remedies must be bona fide, and dilatory tactics may lead to the denial of delay condonation.
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
Service of summons via email and WhatsApp is deemed valid under the Code of Civil Procedure when proof exists, and delay due to negligence in responding to litigation cannot be condoned in commercial....
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
