A court must adopt a pragmatic approach in condoning delay when substantial justice is at stake, especially in family property disputes, thereby overriding strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

ORDER :

HARINATH. N, J.

1. The present civil revision petitions are filed, aggrieved by the common order dated 17.07.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.

2. The learned Judge dismissed the IA.No.16 of 2021, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a delay of 2294 days. IA.No.17 of 2021 was filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the abatement of suit against the deceased plaintiff No.1. The petitioners also filed IA.No.18 of 2021 under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to add the petitioner Nos.3 to 8 in the suit as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1 and, consequentially, to permit amendment of the plaint. All the said applications were dismissed by the learned Judge by a common order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, by order dated 18.10.2022, directed issuance of personal notice to the respondents. It is further submitted that the notices addressed to the respondents were refused by the addressees, and this Court has recorded the service on the respondents as sufficient. There is no representation for the respondents when the matter is taken up for hearing today.

4. The short point for consideration is in the present Civil Revision Petitions is that whether the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, has passed a reasoned order while dismissing the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner ?

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that OS.No.58 of2009 was filed by the petitioner’s father seeking partition of the family property, arraying the petitioner’s grandfather as the sole defendant. During the pendency of the present Civil Revision Petitions, the defendant passed away. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.4 also passed away, and petitioner Nos.9 to 11 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the petitioner No.4.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that the petitioners failed to explain the day-to-day delay while seeking condonation of 2294 days in filing the application to set aside the order of abatement.

7. It is submitted that the respondents before the trial Court did not filed counter; however, the learned Judge had dismissed the interlocutory applications solely on the ground that the petitioners failed to explain the day-to-day delay of 2294 days.

8. It is also submitted that learned Judge got carried away by dismissal of CRP.No.3623 of 2012 filed before this Court by the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff No.2, challenging the order in IA.No.60 of 2010, which was filed seeking condonation of a delay of 850 days. It is submitted that, as on the date when the C.R.P. was taken up for hearing, OS.No.58 of 2009 had already been dismissed as abated, and consequently, the C.R.P. was dismissed as infructuous.

9. It is submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the pendency of the suit filed by their father seeking partition. Only after his demise on 22.03.2013, the petitioners came to know about the pendency of the suit, upon finding a copy of the plaint bearing the suit number in their house. Thereafter, they made enquiries regarding the suit and sought to pursue the same as legal heirs. Accordingly, interlocutory applications were filed to set aside the order of abatement, to implead the legal heirs as party plaintiffs, and to condone the consequential de