IMPORTANT POINT
The Court can only condone a delay if there is a "sufficient cause" behind such delay, and the reasons provided for the delay must not be non-serious or lacking in diligence.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL No. 52985/2023(Condonation of delay)

1. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (hereinafter "the Act"), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter "CPC"), has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeking condonation of delay of 870 days in filing the accompanying civil revision petition.

2. The captioned civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC, challenging the impugned order dated 24th March 2021, passed by the learned ADJ - III, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 918/2019. The said civil suit was filed by the respondent, i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court seeking partition of the property bearing no. Pocket K-12, Ground Floor, Chittaranjan Park, South Delhi, Delhi-110019 (hereinafter "Suit Property").

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 24th March 2021, the learned Trial Court erroneously granted permission to the respondent to withdraw her civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 918/2019, with the liberty to file a fresh suit.

4. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty granted to the respondent to institute a fresh civil suit, the respondent filed a civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 131/2022, before the learned Trial Court seeking possession of the suit property.

5. It is submitted that by way of the captioned civil revision petition, the petitioner is seeking revision of the impugned order since the same suffers from illegality as the learned Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance to the law.

6. It is submitted that unfortunately, due to the manner in which the events unfolded, the present petition suffers from considerable delay. It is submitted that neither the petitioner, nor his counsel was present before the learned Trial Court on 24th March 2021, which is one of the grounds of challenging the impugned order, and were therefore, unaware about the order that was passed by the learned Trial Court.

7. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed during the period of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner learnt about the order during the said period and due to the said reason, he could not approach this Court in time.

8. It is submitted that, in any case, for the computation of limitation period the entire period stands excluded until 1st March 2022, in pursuance to the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is,therefore, submitted that the actual delay is only of 245 days, if the time due to COVID-19, is excluded.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner was of the bonafide belief, that the civil suit was withdrawn due to the fact that the parties wished to complete a sale transaction, and were willing to abide by the oral partition and family settlement ofthe joint family properties including the suit property.

10. It is submitted that, unfortunately, to the utter shock of the petitioner, the respondent filed a civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 131/2022, before the learned Trial Court, claiming her ownership and possession over the suit property.

11. It is submitted that at this juncture, the petitioner realized the implications of the withdrawal order, i.e., the impugned order, which was being abused by the respondent to bypass the requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, in a circuitous fashion using Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the CPC.

12. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, for rejection of the civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 131/2022, but to no avail, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 25th July 2023. It is further submitted that, therefore, the time period spent in pursuing the above said application, also deserves to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation.

13. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant applica