The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in condoning the delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing that the sufficiency of the cause shown is paramount, and the length of delay is immaterial.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

In the case at hand, a Civil Suit bearing No.53 of 2011 had been filed by present respondents No.1 to 3. In the suit so filed, sale deed executed by predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondents No.7 in favour of present petitioner and proforma respondent No.8, had been assailed. Petitioner No.1 along with predecessor-in-interest of proforma respondent No.7 and proforma respondent No.8 had filed a counter claim bearing No.79 of 2012, seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against present respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The suit filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 was dismissed by the trial Court and the counter claim filed by the present petitioner and predecessor-in-interest of proformarespondent No.7 along with proforma respondent No.8 was decreed. The aforesaid two were decided by a common judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015.

3. Aggrieved by the same, respondents No.1 to 3 had preferred one appeal. Since two appeals were to be preferred against the common judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015, therefore on realizing the same, a fresh copy of judgment and decree dated 30.05.2015 was applied for. The same was supplied to respondents No.1 to 3 on 16.02.2021, within one month of the same (after deducting the period spent in obtaining copy and the expiry of the lockdown period), the second appeal was preferred. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal had been preferred. The delay in filing the second appeal was condoned vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been preferred.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

6. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. Attention had been invited to the same to show that a counter claim is to be treated as a plaint and that the same shall have the effect of a cross suit. Other than the aforesaid, attention has been invited to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC specifically the proviso thereto.

7. Other than the aforesaid, attention of this Court has been invited to 2013 (12) SCC 649, titled Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, specifically para 21.8 thereto, to show that while dealing with a case of inordinate delay not only would the doctrine of prejudice be attracted but a case of inordinate delay would also require a strict approach in dealing with the same.

8. Besides the aforesaid, attention has been invited to 2014 (XI) SCC 351, titled Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The same has been referred qua general principles to be dealt with while considering an application for condonation of delay.

9. Other than the aforesaid, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon SLP(C) Nos.935-936 of 2021, titled Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash decided on 21.04.2024. Attention has been drawn to the same to buttress his submission that carelessness or negligence on the part of lawyer cannot be a ground for condoning delay and inordinate delay.

10. In the case at hand, this Court is not hearing an application for condonation of delay but in a revision is examining a discretionary order of the trial Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay. In the case of the former, whether to condone or not would be the only question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for condonation would be the question. Law is fairly well-settled that a Revisional Court should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below.

11. Insofar as the reference to Order 8 Rule 6A CPC and the proviso of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC are concerned, the same qua status of a counter claim and a form of appeal to be preferred from an original decree are clear