Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 164
[Citation : RLW 2011(2) RJ 971 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs. Vs. State of A.P. (Nijjar, J.)
HON'BLE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
HON'BLE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs.
Versus
State of A.P. & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 2908-2913 of 2005, decided on 25.02.2011
Headnote:C.P.C., Order 22 Rule 4; Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 5 — Adopting a liberal approach in considering application for condonation of delay not on the ground of sufficient cause — Substitution of L.Rs. — Delay of more than 10 years — Appeal dismissed for not bringing the L.Rs. on record — While condoning delay High Court allowed the petitions — Held — Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of the parties — They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seeks their remedy promptly —Sufficient cause found unacceptable yet adopting liberal approach, High Court condoned delay — Such a course was not open to the High Court and cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation — Set aside. (Paras 23 to 29)
Appeal allowed.
fl-iz-la-] vkns'k 22 fu;e 4( ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 5 & i;kZIr gsrq ds vHkko esa foyEc ekQh ds vkosnu ij fopkj djrs le; mnkj :[k viukuk &fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dk izfrLFkkiu & 10 o"kZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; dk foyEc & fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks vfHkys[k ij ugha ykus ds dkj.k vihy [kkfjt gqbZ & foyEc ekQh nsrs gq, mPp U;k;ky; us ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ifjlhek ds fu;e i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkj u"V djus gsrq ugha gS & os ;g lqfuf'pr djus gsrq gS fd i{kdkj foyEcdkjh ;qfDr;ksa dk voyEcu ugha ys ikos cfYd rRofjr :i ls mldk mipkj ekaxs & i;kZIr gsrq dks vLohdk;Z gksuk ik;k fQj Hkh mnkj n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, mPp U;k;ky; us foyEc ekQh nh & ,slk vuqØe mPp U;k;ky; ds fy, [kqyk ugha Fkk rFkk ifjlhek dh lkjHkwr fof/k dks dyafdr djus gsrq bldk iz;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 23 ls 29½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. In the applications/petitions, respondent No. 3, herein, had sought the following directions:-
"CMP No. 21114/2003: Petition under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titled therewith, the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioners to bring the above stated persons as legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent in Appeal No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the High Court.
CMP No. 21115/2003: Petition u/S. praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal Order dated 6.2.98 in AS No. 8 of 1985 and to restore the appeal to file.
CMP No. 21116/2003: Petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 read with section 151 CPC, praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of sole respondent i.e. Lanka Venkateswarlu.
CMP No. 21117/2003:
Between
Sri D.E.V. Apparao....Petitioner/impleaded Petitioner in AS No. 8 of 1985 on the file of High Court.
And:
1. The State of A.P. rep. by District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Tahsildar, Visakhpatnam....Respondent/Appellants
3. Lanka Venkateswarlu (died).... Respondent
Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, prays this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners society to be impleaded as appellant No. 3 along with the appellants No. 1 and 2 in AS. 8 of 1985 on the file of the Hon'ble Court to prosecute the appeal.
CMP No. 21118/2003: Petition u/S. 5 of Limitation Act praying the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the petition seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998.
These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Govt. pleader for Appeal for Petitioners in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and of Mr. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate for petitioner in CMP No. 21117 of 2003 and of Mr. M.S.R. Subramanyam, Advocate for the respondents in CMP Nos. 21114, 21115, 21116, 21118 of 2003 and G.P. for Appeal for the respondents in CMP No. 21117 of 2003."
3. We may now briefly notice the relevant facts as stated in the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order of the High Court. The predecessor of the appellants, i.e., Shri Lanka Venkateswarlu, (hereinafter referred to as `original plaintiff'), brought a suit O.S. No. 72 of 1979 before the subordinate judge Visakhapatnam for the declaration of his title as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession. The suit schedule property, to the extent of 2 acres was, according to the original plaintiff, covered by survey No. 73/12 in Thokada village. He had purchased the suit schedule property by a registered sale deed dated 15th July, 1961 from one Gonna Appanna son of Venkataswamy of China Gantyda village. The original plaintiff was constrained to file the aforesaid suit on coming to know that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were claiming the suit schedule land to be "banjar land" which vested in the Government. He had also learned that the land was in imminent danger of being illegally alienated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They were claiming that the land was required to issue Pattas to weaker sections of society.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as the defendants to the suit. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and renumbered as O.S.No. 83 of 1981.
5. The aforesaid averments of the original plaintiffs were controverted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was claimed that the plaint schedule property was not
