The law regarding the condonation of delay requires a satisfactory explanation, and negligence or lack of diligence renders an application for delay condonation unjustifiable.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed by petitioner/defendant No.2 seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, in O.S.No.155/2018 dated 24.03.2025 on I.A.No.1.

3. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant No.2, for the sake of brevity.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to declare the registered sale deeds dated 22.05.2013 and 29.09.2014 to be null and void and not binding and for other consequential reliefs.

5. Defendant No.2 filed an application requesting the Court to permit him to file written statement by condoning the delay of six years. The said application filed by defendant No.2 upon contest came to be rejected by the trial Court by imposing a cost of Rs.500/-. It is this order that is questioned by the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.2.

6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for defendant No.2 that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended by the counsel for defendant No.2 that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for partition and separate possession, to declare the sale deeds to be null and void and not binding on him. He has further contended that the trial Court ought to have given permission and an opportunity to defendant No.2 to file the written statement and to defend the case effectively, as the suit is for partition and the rights of defendant No.2 would be affected without any defence on record. It is further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff filed the suit on 26.06.2018, led the evidence on 09.03.2021 and further evidence on 18.07.2022 and thereafter, nearly took four years time to lead evidence of the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned counsel for defendant No.2 contends that the plaintiff himself was at fault for protracting and prolonging the proceedings and the trial Court has failed to take these aspects into consideration and has mechanically rejected the application for condonation of delay of defendant No.2 in filing the written statement. Along with the application defendant No.2 filed the written statement as well. It is further contended by learned counsel for defendant No.2 that the plaintiff has also got amended the plaint on 28.02.2024, bringing legal representatives of defendant No.8 on record and as the defendant No.8 died during the pendency of the suit and where the plaintiff took nearly 2 years' time to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.8 on record. Therefore, he blames the entire delay on the plaintiff for prolonging and protracting the proceedings in leading evidence and in delay in bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.8 on record. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse, illegal, arbitrary.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 contends that in exceptional circumstances the delay can be condoned. He also contends that the Courts have held that delay should be condoned and a pragmatic approach has to be taken by the Courts while condoning the delay and costs could be imposed rather than disallowing the filing of the written statement solely on the ground of delay. He submits that he has made out sufficient cause and bona fide grounds for the delay. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendant No.2 contends that in a suit for partition there is some delay. The trial Court should consider the relief sought in the suit and appreciate whether to allow or not to allow, and in the present case the suit being for the partition, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay and permitted the filing of the wr