Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
K. Saradamma D/o Kamalakshi Amma - Petitioner
Versus
S.R. Sreekumaran Nair S/o Somasekharan Nair - Respondent
RP No. 814 of 2019, C.M. Appl. No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Review Petition - Delay in filing a Review Petition of 531 days sought to be condoned - The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the reasons given were deemed unconvincing and unacceptable - The court emphasized the necessity for a cogent explanation for each day's delay as established in Pundlik J.Patil v. Executive Engineer - Service of summons to certain respondents was incomplete - C.M Application No.1/2019 dismissed. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Review Petition against an order dismissing her C.M Application for condoning a delay of 1649 days in filing a Regular First Appeal, which was also dismissed due to inordinate delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found no valid cause for condoning the substantial delay in filing the Review Petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of the explanation for the delay and the status of summons to certain respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the 531-day delay in filing the Review Petition, reinforcing the principle that each day's delay must be adequately explained.
Result: C.M Application No.1/2019 and the Review Petition dismissed.
Overview:
Supreme Court has consistently held that condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act requires strict, day-wise explanation for substantial delays, rejecting vague or general pleas like illness without specifics. Early knowledge of decree mandates prompt action; inadequate medical evidence invites dismissal to uphold decree finality. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Supporting Principles and Holdings:
Substantial Delay Demands Day-Wise Justification:
Courts cannot condone lengthy delays (e.g., beyond 30 days under Order IX Rule 13 CPC) based on bald assertions; every day's delay must be explained cogently, or application fails. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Early Knowledge Triggers Strict Limitation:
Limitation runs from date of knowledge of decree; subsequent inaction, despite awareness, is inexcusable and bars condonation. (!) (!) (!)
Vague Medical Claims Insufficient:
General illness or "bedridden" pleas, even with certificates, are rejected without specific timelines covering entire period and contemporaneous records; post-facto evidence deemed afterthought. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
No Latitude for Cursory Explanations:
"Unconvincing" or non-specific averments (e.g., "most of the time" bedridden) fail; courts deny leniency for gross delays, emphasizing bona fides and diligence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prejudice and Finality of Decree:
Prolonged delay prejudices respondent (e.g., evidence loss); ex parte decrees obtained validly cannot be lightly disturbed without exceptional cause. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Application to Defenses:
These rulings directly bolster respondent's opposition: petitioner's 410-day delay, early knowledge, and vague certificate mirror rejected claims, warranting dismissal in limine. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Strategic Use:
Cite in counter-affidavit/arguments to highlight alignment with precedents denying condonation for comparable delays (e.g., 500+ days). (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The petitioner, through the above cited Review Petition, seeks the review of the order of this Court dated 26.10.2017, in C.M Application No.104/2017.
2. We notice that the Review Petition is accompanied by the aforecited C.M.Application, seeking that the delay of 531 days in filing it be condoned.
3. Since the issues in the Review Petition and the application to condone delay in its filing, are interlayed, we will deal with both of them jointly in this order.
4. The petitioner admits that the aforementioned C.M Application No.104/2017 was filed praying to condone the delay of 1649 days in filing R.F.A.No.89/2017; but that it was dismissed by this Court through the impugned order, finding that the explanation for the same was not satisfactory.
5. Sri.R.T.Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that, at the time when this Court passed the impugned order, there was no representation for his client; but explaining that this is because, he personally was under the impression that the matter would be “passed over”. He asserts that he came to Court later, by which time, the impugned order had been issued; but that he still continued to be under the impression “that the matter will be passed over” (sic).
6. Rather incredulously, he then admits that there occurred a delay of 531 days before his client has filed this Review Petition, and submitted that this was because his client did not know that the impugned order had been issued. He maintained, therefore, that his client is justified in seeking a review of the order and pleaded that the above cited C.M Application No.1/2019 be allowed, thus the delay of 531 days in filing the Review Petition be condoned and the said Petition be allowed on its merits.
7. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the above requests of the petitioner for various reasons.
8. For the first, even going by the averments made in the Review Petition, the petitioner says that her counsel was under the impression that this Court had “passed over” the matter on 26.10.201; but conceding expressly that there was no representation on her behalf. Even assuming that we offer credence to this, there is a further question as to how the petitioner then has caused 531 days of delay in filing this Review Petition. If, as stated by the petitioner, her counsel was under the impression that the matter had been “passed over” by this Court on 26.10.2017, it is apodictic that she would have been aware that C.M Application No.104 of 2017 stood dismissed by the end of that day, at least. In such scenario, the petitioner would have surely filed the application for review, or invoked any other remedy that may be available to her, within the next day, or a few; but as we have said above, she has chosen to do so with a further delay 531 days. The submission, that the learned counsel for the petitioner was under the impression that the matter “had been passed over” on 26.10.2017, therefore, can only be seen to be an afterthought, which cannot inspire any confidence from any angle of looking at it.
9. For the second, Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyil – learned counsel for respondent No.11, has filed a counter affidavit vehemently asserting that the delay in filing this Review Petition has not been explained at all; and that the reasons stated in the affidavit in its support are unacceptable. The specific averments to this effect are available in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit, which are extracted below, for ease of reference:
“2. The above Review Petition has been preferred by the Review Petitioner, praying to review the judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Court in R.F.A No. 89/2017. There is a delay of 531 days in filing the above Review Petition. Though the Review Petition was claimed to have been filed on 20.05.2019, the same has been brought up before this Hon'ble Court for consideration only recently. That is, after a period of more than 5½ years of filing the Review P
Each day's delay in filing a review petition must be adequately explained, and failure to do so may lead to dismissal.
The court emphasized the stringent requirements for condoning delays in review applications, necessitating a clear demonstration of sufficient cause.
Courts may refuse to condone delay in filing a Review Petition if the explanation offered for seeking condonation of delay is found unsatisfactory.
A delay of filings must be justified adequately; lack of explanation results in dismissal.
The court condoned the delay in filing the review application due to insufficient notice to the petitioner regarding the original order.
Delay condonation denied where review application lacks merit.
Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause; review confined to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, excluding new evidence arguments.
The court may dismiss a petition to condone delay if the original order has been complied with and no further grounds for review exist.
The court ruled that local self-governments must adhere to limitation laws with no special exemptions and must provide adequate justification for any delay in filing petitions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
