Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 13th May 2013 passed by the learned Joint Registrar of this Court in CS (OS) 1478/2011, which was the earlier avatar of the suit instituted by the respondent against various defendants of which the petitioners were Defendants 9 and 10. Consequent to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts, the suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") and renumbered CS DJ 10027/2016.

Facts

The first impugned order - dated 13th May 2013

2. At the time when the suit was pending before this Court as CS (OS) 1478/2011, the learned Joint Registrar in this Court, vide order dated 20th September 2012, condoned the delay of 106 days in filing of written statement by the petitioners (who are Defendants 9 and 10 in the suit) subject to payment of costs. Costs not having been paid, a last opportunity to do so was granted to the petitioners by the learned Joint Registrar on 26th November 2012. Instead of paying the costs, an application was preferred by the petitioners seeking waiver of costs, which was also dismissed by order dated 5th December 2012.

3. Despite this, the petitioners did not pay the costs as directed on 20th September 2012. In view thereof, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manohar Singh v. D.S. Sharma, (2010) 1 SCC 53, the learned Joint Registrar vide order dated 13th May 2013, struck the written statement filed by the petitioners (as Defendants 9 and 10) off the record.

4. This is the first order under challenge in the present petition.

The second impugned order - dated 17th October 2017

5. Consequent to the aforesaid order, on 13th May 2013, a preliminary decree was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 5th September 2013, partitioning the suit property amongst various legal heirs, and referring the matter to a Local Commissioner to file a report regarding possibility of partition by metes and bounds.

6. The aforesaid order dated 5th September 2013 was challenged, by the petitioners, by way of two proceedings, one by an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), (as the preliminary decree had been passed in the absence of the petitioners) and the second by way of a review application. The review application also assailed the order dated 13th May 2013, which, as already noted, is the first order under challenge in the present petition.

7. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC was filed by the petitioners on 7th November 2013 and the review application, challenging the order dated 13th May, 2013 and the preliminary decree dated 5th September 2013, was filed on 26th October 2016.

8. In the interregnum, consequent to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts, CS(OS) 1478/2011 was transferred to the learned ADJ on 14th January 2016 and was renumbered as CS DJ 10027/2016.

9. Even while, the application filed by the petitioners on 7th November 2013 under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC was pending, the learned ADJ, vide order dated 17th October 2017, dismissed the review application, preferred by the petitioners on 26th October 2016 seeking review of the orders dated 13th May 2013 and 5th September 2013.

10. This order dated 17th October 2017, whereby the review application was dismissed by the learned ADJ constitutes the second order under challenge in the present proceedings.

Later Events

11. On 17th Jan