Shriniwas vs Kapoorchand - 1991 Supreme(MP) 643

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Wadnerker
For the Respondent: Sethi

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.22, R. 3(2) and 4(5)(b) – application for selling aside abatement delayed due to illness – sufficient cause made out – abatement set aside.
       (2) Limitation Act, 1963 – S.5 – application for condonation of delay – material supplied in piece – meal but sufficient cause for condonation shown – rules of procedure do not design punishing the erring parties – they are meant to advance justice – delay condoned.
        Short Note
       Shri Wadnerkar for the appellant and Shri Sethi for the respondent heard on the applications for bringing on record LRs of the deceased appellant, condonation of delay and setting aside abatement.
       2. The appellant died on 5.7.90 and an application to bring his LRs on record was made on 27.10.90 and as such there was delay of some days which was sought to be explained by the proposed LRs of the deceased appellant on the ground of serious heart – attack which fact is supported by medical certificates.
       3. The application was opposed particularly relating to condonation of delay contending inter alia that the appellant did not come with all facts in the first instance and went on supplying date and then medical certificates as the application was opposed by the respondent. It was also said that the appellant should explain delay of each day very carefully before he can pray for condonation.
       4. It has to be seen that medical certificates have been filed both of the admission in K.G.M. Hospital Bombay and then the details of treatment relating to heart – attack. It is true that there was some mistake in stating the date of expiry of the appellant in the original petition but that cannot be said to be mala fide. As concluded by Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 1 that:
       "let it he recalled what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties".
       5. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court the applicants cannot be punished for errors in the applications and in piece – meal furnishing of material when predominantly it appears that there was sufficient cause resulting from illness of the applicant in making application for bringing LRs on record.
       6. Accordingly the delay is condoned. The abatement is set aside and the application for bringing the LRs of the deceased appellant on record is allowed. AIR 1985 SC 1 followed. Applications allowed.