Point of Law : “Sufficient cause” is decisive factor while condoning delay.

JUDGMENT :

This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short), challenging dismissal of AS No.2/2022 on the files of the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, dated 23.07.2023, which arose out of decree and judgment in OS No.183/2008 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta, dated 09.11.2012. The appellants herein are defendants 1 to 4 in the above suit. The respondent in this second appeal is the plaintiff in the above suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff on admission.

3. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' for convenience.

4. In this matter, AS No.2/2022 was dismissed by the Sub Court, as barred by limitation, after dismissing IA No.1/2022, a petition filed to condone delay of 3366 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to look into the legality of the order passed in IA No.1/2022 in AS No.2/2022. In the affidavit, in support of the petition, sworn by one 'Ramachandran', who is the first defendant in OS No.183/2008, reasons raised to condone the long delay have been stated. The relevant portions of the affidavit are extracted as under :

“5. Since I sold some parts of the plaint scheduled property, to the remaining appellants No.2 and 3 they orally entrusted me to conduct and manage the case. Moreover appellant 4 is my wife who is a housewife and pardanashin lady and I was looking after case for the appellant No.4 also. Appellant No.2 to 4 were under the bonafide belief that I was conducting the case.

6. It is submitted that I am an age old person, suffering from various age related ailments. I was also suffering from serious mental health disorders including Psychosis and recently achieved stable mental state. Since due to my ailments, I could not contact physically my counsel and proceed with the case, and to entrust the case filling appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Munsiff court, kalpetta in OS 183/2008 dated 09/11/2012.

7. The non filing of the appeal suit in time against the order of Munsiff court Kalpetta in OS 138/2008 is not wilful and not deliberate. In this context, there is a delay of 3366 days has caused in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble court. If the delay is not condoned by this Hon'ble court, appellants will be put to irreparable loss and injury.”

5. A detailed objection was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, mainly contending that this appeal has been filed challenging the decree and judgment passed in the year 2012 and the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the petition are quite insufficient to condone the long delay of more than ten years. Hence, for want of sufficient reasons, the delay petition is to be dismissed.

6. The learned Sub Judge meticulously analysed the rival contentions and finally, dismissed the application, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Basawaraj & Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746, wherein the Apex court held that the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond the limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case, a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court would be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case, there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning