The court emphasized that litigants owe a duty to track their cases vigilantly and cannot solely blame their lawyers for delays when seeking to condone significant time lapses.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the orders dated 10.09.2024 in IA No.73 of 2024 in IA No.479 of 2018 in COS No.17 of 2018, on the file of Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, by which the Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the application to restore the petition in IA No.479 of 2018.

2. Heard Sri V. Ch. Naidu, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and none appeared for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows :

(a) This revision petition is preferred by the defendant in suit COS No.17 of 2018, questioning the order dated 10.09.2024, passed in IA No.73 of 2024 in IA No.479 of 2018 in COS No.17 of 2018. This application was filed under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the restoration application in IA No.479 of 2018.

(b) The respondent/plaintiff filed OS No.386 of 2017 for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,26,34,057/- and also for subsequent interest thereon before II Additional District Judge, Guntur. After receiving the summons, the defendant/revision petitioner filed IA No.479 of 2018 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The suit was thereafter transferred to Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, and re-numbered as COS No.17 of 2018.

(c) IA No.479 of 2018 has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.12.2022. Thereafter, the defendant/revision petitioner filed IA No.73 of 2024 to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the application to restore IA No.479 of 2018, which was dismissed for default by order dated 13.12.2022. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.09.2024, against which the present revision petition is preferred.

4. The Counsel for the revision petitioner primarily challenges the order of the Trial Court on the ground that factum of dismissal of IA No.479 of 2018 by order dated 13.12.2022 for non-prosecution was not informed to the defendant/revision petitioner by his earlier Counsel, as such, due to timely communication of such dismissal order, there occurred a delay of 278 days in filing the application for restoration of the dismissal order. Besides the above, it is also contended that though sufficient cause has been demonstrated for condoning the delay, the Court below has not acceded to the same and dismissed the application. It is further contended that while considering the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , the Court should adopt liberal approach and endeavour to consider the main cause in the case and address the merits of the matter. In support of the said contention, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Trust Association of CBCNC v. M/s. H.R.R. Constructions Private Limited and others , 2024 (4) ALT 386 (DB) = 2024 SCC OnLine AP 2599 and attention is drawn to Para 8, which reads as under:

"8. (i) In Dhiraj Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Apex Court while considering the SLPs filed by the appellants against the order of the High Court refusing to condone the delay in filing the letters patent appeals seeking enhanced compensation in land acquisition matters. In that context the Apex Court considered it earlier judgment in Collector (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein it was observed thus :

"(1) Ordinarily a litigant does