Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Sant Kumar Singh - Revisionist
Versus
Nanku Singh and Ors. - Opposite Parties
Civil Revision Defective No. 253 of 2015
Decided On : 31-08-2022
Delay Condonation - Civil Revision - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - The judgment discusses the delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in preferring the present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court considered the facts leading to the delay condonation application and the principles on which a prayer for condonation of delay are to be considered. The court referred to the Supreme Court cases of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others and Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao v. Reddy Srivedi and others to determine the principles for condonation of delay. The court found that there was no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay and dismissed the application.
Fact of the Case:
The delay condonation application was filed seeking to condone the delay in preferring the present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The delay was reported to be 15 years and 244 days. The case arose from Original Suit No. 11 of 1982, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The applicant-revisionist sought to condone the delay based on various events and circumstances, including the death of his counsel and personal health issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay of 15 years and 244 days in preferring the revisionist. The court dismissed the delay condonation application and rejected the memo of revision as barred by time.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 15 years and 244 days in preferring the revisionist.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles for condonation of delay as enumerated by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others and Majji Sannemma alias Sanyasirao v. Reddy Srivedi and others. The court emphasized the need for a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, and the importance of substantial justice, lack of bona fides, and the distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration.
Final Decision: The court found that there was no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay of 15 years and 244 days in preferring the revisionist. The delay condonation application was dismissed, and the memo of revision was rejected as barred by time.
JUDGMENT :
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.426225 of 2015
1. This is a delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay in preferring the present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The office has reported a delay of 15 years and 244 days, and by the present application, the applicant-revisionist asks this Court to condone the said delay.
3. The facts leading to this delay condonation application are required to be briefly recounted in order to appreciate whether a sufficient cause is made out to condone the long delay of 15 years and 244 days in preferring the Revision. The defendant is the judgment debtor of Original Suit No. 11 of 1982, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 on 19.05.1983. The suit was one for specific performance of contract relating to sale of land. The applicant-revisionist and the opposite party no.2 preferred a First Appeal to this Court being First Appeal No. 274 of 1983. The First Appeal aforesaid was partly allowed on 19.12.1997 and this Court directed the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 to deposit Rs.25,000/- within a period of four months. The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 was held entitled to adjustment of Rs.5,000/- while making the deposit, in case he had already made good that amount before the Execution Court.
4. Defendant no.2 to the suit i.e. the applicant-revisionist was ordered to join Dharampal, the defendant-proforma opposite party here, in execution of the sale deed in respect of whatever interest he acquired under the sale deed executed in his favour by Dharampal, subsequent to the suit agreement. It was further provided that in case the plaintiff fails to make good the deposit within the period of four months, it will be deemed that he is not ready and willing to perform his part of the suit agreement and the suit shall stand dismissed.
5. The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 moved Civil Misc. Time Extension No. 15351 of 1998 before this Court in First Appeal No. 274 of 1983 and prayed for extension of time by two months to deposit the sum of Rs.25,000/-, as directed by this Court. It appears that on 09.10.2003, Civil Misc. Time Extension Application No. 15351 of 1998 was rejected. On 01.07.1998, when Civil Misc. Time Extension Application aforesaid was pending before this Court, the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 moved Execution Case No. 5 of 1998 without depositing the balance consideration of Rs.20,000/-, the sum of Rs.5,000/- having already been deposited.
6. It is the judgment debtor's case that the opposite party did not comply with the judgment dated 19.12.1997 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 274 of 1983, in consequence whereof his suit stands dismissed, in terms of the judgment and decree passed. It is averred in Paragraph No.10 of the affidavit that all these proceedings taken in appeal before this Court and the Execution Court were not within the applicant-revisionist's knowledge for reason that at the relevant time, the revisionist was a minor aged about six years. However, in the next Paragraph, it is averred that the time extension application was pending before this Court and for the said reason, the applicant-revisionist had no occasion to imagine that the the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 would go to the Execution Court and levy execution. It is also averred that no notice of execution was served upon the applicant-revisionist. There is an averment further that concealing all facts about the pendency of the time extension application and disobeying the orders of this Court dated 19.12.1997, by not depositing the additional sum of money towards consideration, as directed by this Court, the plaintiff-opposite party succeeded in his fraud to secure the impugned order dated 12.01.2000. It is submitted that when the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 came to take possession in the year 2006, the revisionist-judgment debtor became aware for the first
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to advance substantial justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
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
